# The Origins and Causes of the U.S. Civil War



## Rogue 9

Despite the fact that it has been over for 149 years, the American Civil War's causes, the motives behind the secession of the Deep South, and even the legality of secession itself are still matters of hot debate in historical circles. There has been so much historical revisionism on the subject (on both sides, no less), that it has become difficult to get a clear account of the reasons behind it, although the facts of the actual events are widely available.

In this thread, I'm going to lay out the facts as I see them. I freely admit to being a Unionist and ardent anti-Confederate, but feel that these are positions borne out by the objective facts of the matter rather than damaging biases. Make of that what you will.

First, the motives behind secession.

Too often, you will see apologists for the Confederacy claiming that the South did what it did because they saw that Abraham Lincoln was a despotic tyrant in the making, that he would subjugate the rights of the people and crush the states beneath the boot of the federal government. "Lincoln the Tyrant" is a popular trope, spurred onward by the usual grain of truth that gives such things their lasting appeal: Abraham Lincoln did, as President, suspend _habeas corpus_, raise an army without the consent of Congress, and, yes, ordered the forfeit of property on the part of Confederates (i.e. freed the slaves, though it's not often put like that in a criticism for obvious reasons). You see this repeated over and over in neo-Confederate and anarchocapitalist circles; for instance, a look through the titles of Thomas DiLorenzo's essays shows an obsession with writing extensive character attacks on President Lincoln, and while probably the most prolific, he's not the only one.

There are obvious problems with this approach, however.  The most glaring is that none of the things that Lincoln did that earn so much scorn could have been done outside the context of the Civil War.  In other words, far from predicting Lincoln's behavior and seceding to avoid it, the southern states were the catalyst for his behavior!  After all, had there been no insurrection, there would have been no need to arrest insurrectionists, raise an army to suppress the insurrection, and emancipate the slaves in Confederate-held territory as a war measure.  (More on the scope of the Emancipation Proclamation later.)  

The other problem, of course, is that there is no shortage of primary source documents from the Confederate governments themselves stating exactly why they seceded.  I see no reason to disbelieve them, so without further ado, the various Declarations of the Causes of Secession from several Confederate states.  I have excerpted them for brevity's sake, but the complete text of each may be found at the links provided.  

Texas: Declaration of the Causes of Secession



> A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union.
> 
> The government of the United States, by certain joint resolutions, bearing date the 1st day of March, in the year A.D. 1845, proposed to the Republic of Texas, then a free, sovereign and independent nation, the annexation of the latter to the former, as one of the co-equal states thereof,
> 
> The people of Texas, by deputies in convention assembled, on the fourth day of July of the same year, assented to and accepted said proposals and formed a constitution for the proposed State, upon which on the 29th day of December in the same year, said State was formally admitted into the Confederated Union.
> 
> Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association.
> 
> ...
> 
> When we advert to the course of individual non-slave-holding States, and that a majority of their citizens, our grievances assume far greater magnitude.
> 
> The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article *[the fugitive slave clause*] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation...
> 
> In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.
> 
> For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States.
> 
> By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress,


Yeah, that's kind of what the majority does in a republic. Moving on.  





> and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments.
> 
> They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a 'higher law' than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights.
> 
> They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.
> 
> They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offenses, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved.
> 
> ...
> 
> And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States.
> 
> In view of these and many other facts, it is meet that our own views should be distinctly proclaimed.
> 
> We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.
> 
> That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.
> 
> By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South.



South Carolina also chimes in, with this gem: South Carolina: Declaration of the Causes of Secession


> Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union
> 
> The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.
> 
> And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.
> 
> ...
> 
> The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
> 
> *This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made.* The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.
> 
> The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.
> 
> The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.
> 
> The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
> 
> These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.
> 
> We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
> 
> ...
> 
> On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
> 
> ...
> 
> We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.



And most egregiously, Mississippi: Mississippi: Declaration of the Causes of Secession


> A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
> 
> In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
> 
> Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
> 
> That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.
> 
> The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.
> 
> The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.
> 
> The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.
> 
> It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.
> 
> It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.
> 
> It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.
> 
> It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.
> 
> It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.
> 
> It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.
> 
> It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.
> 
> ...
> 
> Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.
> 
> Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.



Even for those seceding states that did not publish official Declarations of Causes, we may learn much from their secession convention delegates.  For instance, this address of George Williamson, a Commissioner for the state of Louisiana, to the Texas secession convention, March 9, 1861.  Illustrates slavery as a secession aim.  





> To the Hon. O.M. Roberts, President of the Convention of the People of Texas.
> 
> Mr. President and Gentlemen of the people of Texas.
> 
> I have the honor to address you as the commissioner of the people of Louisiana, accredited to your honorable body.
> 
> ...
> 
> The people of Louisiana were unwilling to endanger their liberties and property by submission to the despotism of a single tyrant, or the canting tyranny of pharisaical majorities. Insulted by the denial of her constitutional equality by the non-slaveholding States, outraged by their contemptuous rejection of proffered compromises, and convinced that she was illustrating the capacity of her people for self-government by withdrawing from a union that had failed, without fault of hers, to accomplish its purposes, she declared herself a free and independent State on the 26th day of January last. History affords no example of a people who changed their government for more just or substantial reasons. Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery, and of the free institutions of the founders of the Federal Union, bequeathed to their posterity. As her neighbor and sister State, she desires the hearty co-operation of Texas in the formation of a Southern Confederacy. She congratulates herself on the recent disposition evinced by your body to meet this wish, by the election of delegates to the Montgomery convention. Louisiana and Texas have the same language, laws and institutions. Between the citizens of each exists the most cordial social and commercial intercourse. The Red river and the Sabine form common highways for the transportation of their produce to the markets of the world. Texas affords to the commerce of Louisiana a large portion of her products, and in exchange the banks of New Orleans furnish Texas with her only paper circulating medium. Louisiana supplies to Texas a market for her surplus wheat, grain and stock; both States have large areas of fertile, uncultivated lands, peculiarly adapted to slave labor; and *they are both so deeply interested in African slavery that it may be said to be absolutely necessary to their existence, and is the keystone to the arch of their prosperity.* ...
> 
> The people of Louisiana would consider it a most fatal blow to African slavery, if Texas either did not secede or having seceded should not join her destinies to theirs in a Southern Confederacy. If she remains in the union the abolitionists would continue their work of incendiarism and murder. Emigrant aid societies would arm with Sharp's rifles predatory bands to infest her northern borders. The Federal Government would mock at her calamity in accepting the recent bribes in the army bill and Pacific railroad bill, and with abolition treachery would leave her unprotected frontier to the murderous inroads of hostile savages. Experience justifies these expectations. A professedly friendly federal administration gave Texas no substantial protection against the Indians or abolitionists, and what must she look for from an administration avowedly inimical and supported by no vote within her borders. Promises won from the timid and faithless are poor hostages of good faith. As a separate republic, Louisiana remembers too well the whisperings of European diplomacy for the abolition of slavery in the times of annexation not to be apprehensive of bolder demonstrations from the same quarter and the North in this country. The people of the slaveholding States are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery. The isolation of any one of them from the others would make her a theatre for abolition emissaries from the North and from Europe. Her existence would be one of constant peril to herself and of imminent danger to other neighboring slave-holding communities. A decent respect for the opinions and interests of the Gulf States seems to indicate that Texas should co-operate with them. I am authorized to say to your honorable body that Louisiana does not expect any beneficial result from the peace conference now assembled at Washington. She is unwilling that her action should depend on the border States. Her interests are identical with Texas and the seceding States. With them she will at present co-operate, hoping and believing in his own good time God will awaken the people of the border States to the vanity of asking for, or depending upon, guarantees or compromises wrung from a people whose consciences are too sublimated to be bound by that sacred compact, the constitution of the late United States. That constitution the Southern States have never violated, and taking it as the basis of our new government we hope to form a slave-holding confederacy that will secure to us and our remotest posterity the great blessings its authors designed in the Federal Union. With the social balance wheel of slavery to regulate its machinery, we may fondly indulge the hope that our Southern government will be perpetual.
> 
> Geo. Williamson
> Commissioner of the State of Louisiana
> City of Austin Feby 11th 1861.



To hear from yet another Deep South state, a speech of E.S. Dargan to the Secession Convention of Alabama, January 11, 1861.


> I wish, Mr. President, to express the feelings with which I vote for the secession of Alabama from the Government of the United States; and to state, in a few words, the reasons that impel me to this act.
> 
> I feel impelled, Mr. President, to vote for this Ordinance by an overruling necessity. Years ago I was convinced that the Southern States would be compelled either to separate from the North, by dissolving the Federal Government, or they would be compelled to abolish the institution of African Slavery. This, in my judgment, was the only alternative; and I foresaw that the South would be compelled, at some day, to make her selection. The day is now come, and Alabama must make her selection, either to secede from the Union, and assume the position of a sovereign, independent State, or she must submit to a system of policy on the part of the Federal Government that, in a short time, will compel her to abolish African Slavery.
> 
> Mr. President, if pecuniary loss alone were involved in the abolition of slavery, I should hesitate long before I would give the vote I now intend to give. If the destruction of slavery entailed on us poverty alone, I could bear it, for I have seen poverty and felt its sting. But poverty, Mr. President, would be one of the least of the evils that would befall us from the abolition of African slavery. There are now in the slaveholding States over four millions of slaves; dissolve the relation of master and slave, and what, I ask, would become of that race? To remove them from amongst us is impossible. History gives us no account of the exodus of such a number of persons. We neither have a place to which to remove them, nor the means of such removal. They therefore must remain with us; and if the relation of master and slave be dissolved, and our slaves turned loose amongst us without restraint, they would either be destroyed by our own hands - the hands to which they look, and look with confidence, for protection - or we ourselves would become demoralized and degraded. *The former result would take place, and we ourselves would become the executioners of our own slaves.* To this extent would the policy of our Northern enemies drive us; and thus would we not only be reduced to poverty, but what is still worse, we should be driven to crime, to the commission of sin; and we must, therefore, this day elect between the Government formed by our fathers (the whole spirit of which has been perverted), and POVERTY AND CRIME! This being the alternative, I cannot hesitate for a moment what my duty is. I must separate from the Government of my fathers, the one under which I have lived, and under which I wished to die. But I must do my duty to my country and my fellow beings; and humanity, in my judgment, demands that Alabama should separate herself from the Government of the United States.
> 
> If I am wrong in this responsible act, I hope my God may forgive me; for I am not actuated, as I think, from any motive save that of justice and philanthropy!


Abolition would *force them to commit murder, nay, genocide* in his view, because that would be better than being "degraded" by having free blacks in their midst.  

And to put the final nail in the coffin, we go to the Vice President of the Confederate States, speaking of the new Confederate Constitution. Alexander H. Stephens: Cornerstone Address


> March 21, 1861
> We are in the midst of one of the greatest epochs in our history. The last ninety days will mark one of the most memorable eras in the history of modern civilization.
> 
> ...
> 
> But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other-though last, not least: the new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions-African slavery as it exists among us-the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. *This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.* Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the Constitution, was the prevailing idea at the time. The Constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly used against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it-when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."
> 
> Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; *its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.* This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, *based upon* this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It is so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North who still cling to these errors with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind; from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is, forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics: their conclusions are right if their premises are. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights, with the white man.... I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the Northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery; that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle-a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of man. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds we should succeed, and that he and his associates in their crusade against our institutions would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as well as in physics and mechanics, I admitted, but told him it was he and those acting with him who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.
> 
> In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.
> 
> As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are, and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo-it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not therefore look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first Government ever instituted upon principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many Governments have been founded upon the principles of certain classes; but the classes thus enslaved, were of the same race, and in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws. The negro by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, [note: A reference to Genesis, 9:20-27, which was used as a justification for slavery] is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite-then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is the best, not only for the superior but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances or to question them. For His own purposes He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made "one star to differ from another in glory."
> 
> The great objects of humanity are best attained, when conformed to his laws and degrees, in the formation of Governments as well as in all things else. Our Confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders "is become the chief stone of the corner" in our new edifice.


And just as a reminder of what change in the Confederate Constitution he referred to:  


			
				Constitution of the Confederate States said:
			
		

> No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.


Parts in red are relevant. The section of the Texas Declaration in blue admits that Texas surrendered her separate national character.

I should think that this lays to rest claims that the southern states were benevolently attempting to avoid general oppression; they rather acted in order to keep a large segment of their own populations oppressed.

Ah, but regardless of their reasons, moral or immoral, it was the right of the states to end the compact of the Constitution, cries out the Libertarian circle!  It was never the intention of the Founders to forever bind the states against their wills, and they intentionally left the door open to secession by not explicitly banning it in the Constitution!  Lincoln's actions, therefore, forever and improperly removed a natural right of the states, a safeguard against future tyranny.  

Well, no.  Let's look at the intentions of the Founders.  Secession did indeed occur to them; after all, the Hartford Convention at which a minority of New England delegates advocated secession had happened during their lifetimes and many were still alive during the Nullification Crisis of the 1830s.  There are therefore many writings from several Founding Fathers to draw from.  At random, let's start with James Madison.  From this letter to William Rives.


> The milliners it appears, endeavor to shelter themselves under a distinction between a delegation and a surrender of powers. But if the powers be attributes of sovereignty & nationality & the grant of them be perpetual, *as is necessarily implied*, where not otherwise expressed, *sovereignty & nationality according to the extent of the grant are effectually transferred by it*, and a dispute about the name, is but a battle of words. The practical result is not indeed left to argument or inference. *The words of the Constitution are explicit that the Constitution & laws of the U. S. shall be supreme over the Constitution & laws of the several States, supreme in their exposition and execution as well as in their authority. Without a supremacy in those respects it would be like a scabbard in the hand of a soldier without a sword in it. The imagination itself is startled at the idea of twenty four independent expounders of a rule that cannot exist, but in a meaning and operation, the same for all.*
> 
> The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not only the question of nullification, but the more formidable one of secession. It is asked whether a State by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the Union, may not of right withdraw from it at will. As this is a simple question whether a State, more than an individual, has a right to violate its engagements, it would seem that it might be safely left to answer itself. But the countenance given to the claim shows that it cannot be so lightly dismissed. The natural feelings which laudably attach the people composing a State, to its authority and importance, are at present too much excited by the unnatural feelings, with which they have been inspired agst their brethren of other States, not to expose them, to the danger of being misled into *erroneous views of the nature of the Union* and the interest they have in it. One thing at least seems to be too clear to be questioned, that whilst a State remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution & laws of the Union. In the event of an actual secession without the Consent of the Co States, the course to be pursued by these involves questions painful in the discussion of them.


Madison actually considered the idea of unilateral secession so preposterous that until it actually came up when South Carolina first threatened it he felt there was no need to even mention it, and was astonished that he should have to.  He also references the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution as proof positive that the states had no such ability, something that modern neo-Confederates tend to deny.  Given that he wrote the thing, I should think I trust Madison's interpretation of it. Also note that he asserts that sovereignty and nationality lay with the United States, not the individual states.

And now for the thoughts of the man commonly referred to as the father of our country, George Washington, chairman of the Constitutional Convention and first President.  This is from his Circular to the States.


> There are four things, which I humbly conceive, are essential to the well being, I may even venture to say, to the existence of the United States as an Independent Power:
> 
> 1st. An *indissoluble Union of the States* under one Federal Head.
> 
> 2dly. A Sacred regard to Public Justice.
> 
> 3dly. The adoption of a proper Peace Establishment, and
> 
> 4thly. The prevalence of that pacific and friendly Disposition, among the People of the United States, which will induce them to forget their local prejudices and policies, to make those mutual concessions which are requisite to the general prosperity, and in some instances, to sacrifice their individual advantages to the interest of the Community.
> 
> ...
> 
> Under the first head, altho' it may not be necessary or proper for me in this place to enter into a particular disquisition of the principles of the Union, and to take up the great question which has been frequently agitated, whether it be expedient and requisite for the States to delegate a larger proportion of Power to Congress, or not, Yet it will be a part of my duty, and that of every true Patriot, to assert without reserve, and to insist upon the following positions, That unless the States will suffer Congress to exercise those prerogatives, they are undoubtedly invested with by the Constitution, every thing must very rapidly tend to Anarchy and confusion, That it is indispensable to the happiness of the individual States, that there should be lodged somewhere, a Supreme Power to regulate and govern the general concerns of the Confederated Republic, without which the Union cannot be of long duration. That there must be a faithful and pointed compliance on the part of every State, with the late proposals and demands of Congress, or the most fatal consequences will ensue, *That whatever measures have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or contribute to violate or lessen the Sovereign Authority, ought to be considered as hostile to the Liberty and Independency of America, and the Authors of them treated accordingly*, and lastly, that unless we can be enabled by the concurrence of the States, to participate of the fruits of the Revolution, and enjoy the essential benefits of Civil Society, under a form of Government so free and uncorrupted, so happily guarded against the danger of oppression, as has been devised and adopted by the Articles of Confederation, it will be a subject of regret, that so much blood and treasure have been lavished for no purpose, that so many sufferings have been encountered without a compensation, and that so many sacrifices have been made in vain.


Ouch.  That one's got to sting, especially since many neo-Confederates actually hold Washington as a hero.  There was in fact a portrait of him dominating the front wall of the hall in Montgomery where the Confederate Constitution was drawn up.  

But these are the opinions of men.  What does that Supreme Law of the Land say, actually?  Often the Tenth Amendment is cited as a grant of the power to break up the Union.  That Amendment:  





			
				United States Constitution said:
			
		

> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


But this explicitly applies to powers not delegated to the United States.  So let's see what is.  


			
				United States Constitution said:
			
		

> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, *suppress Insurrections* and repel Invasions


Insurrection and rebellion are obviously illegal; otherwise there would be no provision for suppressing it.  





			
				United States Constitution said:
			
		

> The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.


Again, if rebellion is legal, why the injunction against it? 





			
				United States Constitution said:
			
		

> No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, *keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War*, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.


Again, if you need the consent of Congress to raise an army, then it would seem that just leaving would be out; after all, if you can just leave, why bother having such a restriction?  





			
				United States Constitution said:
			
		

> Treason against the United States, shall consist only in *levying War against them*, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.


Speaks for itself, I think.  





			
				United States Constitution said:
			
		

> *The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory* or other Property belonging to the United States; and *nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States*, or of any particular State.


This one's the kicker.  When taken in the context of the Supremacy Clause, we see that the states cannot violate the territorial sovereignty of the United States.  Secession is such a violation.  Here is that Clause, which is the one Madison referred to in his letter to Senator Rives:  





			
				United States Constitution said:
			
		

> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, *shall be the supreme Law of the Land*; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, *any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding*.


So where is the right to secede?  I'm certainly not seeing it.  Incidentally, if that was such a big deal to the Confederate States, you would think they would have seen fit to include it in their own constitution.  They did not.  In fact, the only change they made which affects the ability of states to leave their union is this:  





			
				Confederate Constitution said:
			
		

> We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a *permanent federal government*, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...


So much for the right of secession.

Now, none of this is to say that the North was all sweetness and light.  It was not. While slavery was the proximate cause of the initial secessions, and therefore the ultimate cause of the war, freeing the slaves was not the North's motive in prosecuting the war. Rather, the North was motivated primarily to preserve the Union; while Lincoln was personally an abolitionist, he did not believe it within his power as President to free the slaves. (Ironic, since he did take several powers normally reserved for Congress - namely, suspension of _habeus corpus_ and calling out the militia to suppress insurrection - upon himself in the interim between his inauguration and Congress coming to session.)

The Emancipation Proclamation was indeed a great step, but it was first and foremost a war measure.  Slave states which did not secede from the Union were permitted to keep their slaves until the passage of the 13th Amendment.  In fact, prior to the Proclamation, Lincoln rescinded orders by Generals John Frémont and David Hunter freeing the slaves in areas of the Confederacy they had captured; he dismissed Frémont when the general refused the President's orders to reverse his decision.  

It was political reality that making the war about slavery would likely have cost Lincoln the war (Ulysses S. Grant said he would resign if he thought the war's objective was to free the slaves, and the border states would likely have simply seceded themselves), but that doesn't change the fact that the Union's prosecution of the war was not to free the slaves; it just makes it more excusable.

However, what is not excusable is the South's behavior prior to and during the Civil War. War would not have happened without secession. The initial secessions were without doubt motivated by a desire to maintain and expand chattel slavery (secessions after Lincoln took office were motivated by an unwillingness to contribute troops to fight the South, but again, without slavery none of it would have happened), and that is what matters to the causes of the war.


----------



## eagle1462010

The Civil War was far more than a slavery issue...........The deep divisions had been going on many issues way before it went to blows................Mostly on the South not having a voice..............The North had the large population and were Industrial, while the South relied on farming..........aka cotton..........with a much smaller population.............the South basically had no chance whatsoever in the House of Representatives............and the North imposed laws that pissed off the South.  Secession was talked about in 1820..............

Causes of the Civil War - A Northern Perspective


----------



## Rogue 9

Be specific.  Which "many issues?"  

The idea that the South didn't have a voice in government is laughable.  Slaves were unable to vote yet counted for 3/5ths of a person for Congressional representation; the South's voters were in fact grossly overrepresented, and Southern politicians dominated national politics for the first eighty years of the country's existence.  Ten of the first fifteen Presidents were slaveholders.  

Yes, the South relied upon cotton for its economic output.  What means did they use to cultivate that cotton?  Answer that question and you come back to the same result.  

What laws did the North impose that pissed off the South?  The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was entirely directed against the free states for the benefit of the Slave Power.  If you refer to the personal liberty laws passed at the state level by some free states... well then you've come back to the same answer.


----------



## eagle1462010

Tariff U.S. history - encyclopedia article - Citizendium

*1789 to 1828*
The Tariff Act of 1789 imposed the first national source of revenue for the newly formed United States. The new Constitution allowed only the federal government to levy tariffs, so the old system of state rates disappeared. The new law taxed all imports at rates from 5 to 15 percent. These modest rates were primarily designed to generate revenue to pay the national debt and annual expenses of the federal government. In his Report on Manufactures Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton proposed a far-reaching scheme to use protective tariffs as a lever for rapid industrialization. His proposals were not adopted.

The high protectionism Hamilton called for was not adopted until after the War of 1812 when nationalists like Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun wanted more industry so the nation would have a balanced economy. In wartime, they declared, having a home industry was a necessity. Likewise owners of the small new factories that were springing up in the northeast to produce boots, hats, candles, nails and other common items failed to obtain higher tariffs that would significantly protect them from more efficient British producers. A 10% discount on the tax was offered on items imported in American ships, so that the American merchant marine would be supported.

Once industrialization started, the demand for higher and higher tariffs came from manufacturers and factory workers. They believed that Americans should be protected from the low wages of Europe. Every Congressman was eager to logroll a higher rate for his local industry. Senator Daniel Webster, formerly a spokesperson for Boston's merchants who imported goods (and wanted low tariffs), switched dramatically to represent the manufacturing interests in the Tariff of 1824. Rates were especially high for bolts of cloth and for bar iron, of which Britain was a low-cost producer. The culmination came in the Tariff of 1828, ridiculed by free traders as the "Tariff of Abominations", with duties averaging over 50 percent. Intense political reaction came from South Carolinians, who concluded that they would pay more for imports and sell less cotton abroad, so their economic interest was being unfairly injured. They attempted to "nullify" the federal tariff and spoke of secession (see the Nullification Crisis). The compromise that ended the crisis included a lowering of the tariff over ten years to a uniform 20% in 1842.

*Tariff 1828-60*
Henry Clay and his Whig Party, envisioning a rapid modernization based on highly productive factories, sought a high tariff. Their key argument was that startup factories, or "infant industries," would at first be less efficient than European (British) producers. Furthermore, American factory workers would be paid higher wages than their European competitors. The arguments proved highly persuasive in industrial districts. Clay's position was adopted in the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832.

John C. Calhoun in his _South Carolina Exposition and Protest_ rejected the idea that government policies designed to benefit one section at the expense of another was good government policy. This led protracted southern resistance leading to the Nullification Crisis which forced the Whigs to abandon higher tariffs until 1842. When the Whigs won victories in the 1840 and 1842 elections, taking control of Congress, they re-instituted higher tariffs with the Tariff of 1842.

The Democrats won in 1844, electing James K. Polk as president. Polk succeeded in passing the Walker tariff of 1846 by uniting the rural and agricultural factions of the country for lower taxes. These sections sought a "tariff for revenue only" that would pay the cost of government but not show favoritism to one section or economic sector at the expense of another. The Walker Tariff remained in place until 1857, when a nonpartisan coalition lowered import duties to 18 percent with the Tariff of 1857. The United States thus had a low-tariff policy that favored the South until the Civil War began in 1861.

The South was against these tariffs............Stated it would hurt their import prices and also lower their exports of cotton to Europe...............

It hurt the southern economy which was agri.........as it protected higher wage industries in the North through Protectionism............

The South was unable to stop this as the population of the North made sure that the House of Reps always went to the Industrialist views.....................

When they lost their ability to have an equal voice in the Senate with Kansas they felt they had NO VOICE at all..................

This had been going on since the War of 1812................


----------



## eagle1462010

Rogue 9 said:


> Be specific.  Which "many issues?"
> 
> The idea that the South didn't have a voice in government is laughable.  Slaves were unable to vote yet counted for 3/5ths of a person for Congressional representation; the South's voters were in fact grossly overrepresented, and Southern politicians dominated national politics for the first eighty years of the country's existence.  Ten of the first fifteen Presidents were slaveholders.
> 
> Yes, the South relied upon cotton for its economic output.  What means did they use to cultivate that cotton?  Answer that question and you come back to the same result.
> 
> What laws did the North impose that pissed off the South?  The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was entirely directed against the free states for the benefit of the Slave Power.  If you refer to the personal liberty laws passed at the state level by some free states... well then you've come back to the same answer.



I posted 2...........and posted the opinion that they had virtually no voice in the House............Shall I post the data on the population differences or will you simply agree that the North had a vastly larger population whose primary economy was based on Industrial Production...................

The protectionism hurt the South's economy................

btw>......I'm not saying slavery was a good thing..........I abhor it..........but to state that it was the only reason the Civil War happened is untrue.


----------



## Rogue 9

No it isn't.  You yourself _just said_ that the tariff was at its lowest level in decades in 1860. 

Read the secession documents.  They carry on at length about slavery and the interests of the slaveholding states as opposed to those of the nonslaveholding states.  The tariff comes up a few times in passing, in Georgia's case (I left theirs out for lack of space; I was running up against the post length limit at another place I posted this) to note that they'd already won on the issue and the only problem left was that the Republicans wished to restrict slavery.  If the tariff was such a huge reason for secession, they'd have said so when listing their reasons for secession.  Besides, that comes back to slavery yet again; the reason the South's economy was so completely agrarian was because they relied upon slavery!  Driving their economy only drove demand for slaves.


----------



## eagle1462010

aka you want anybody who comes to this thread to say SLAVERY WAS THE ONLY REASON FOR THE WAR...........................

That is not true.............the South had other reasons and much of it was that they felt they had no say in gov't even as early as 1812............Slavery was the major player but the War had been brewing for a long time over the South having a say in the Federal gov't............................

anyway................I put some points up about some of the other reasons and you don't want to hear it....................

Is this just a bait thread to say anyone who doesn't agree with everything you say is a Racist...........if so........I'm done with this thread.


----------



## eagle1462010

Causes of the Civil War - A Southern Perspective

*Tariffs*

Tariffs were permitted in the Constitution to allow the United States to generate revenue. The first act, the Tariff Act of 1789, did just that, fairly raising revenue through tariffs on imported goods. In the Tariff of 1816, however, the United States tariff structure changed from revenue producing to protectionist. These protectionist tariffs had been proposed by Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton back in 1789 but the concept was pretty much ignored. Hamilton's original reason was promote the industrialization of the North. 

Tariffs levied in 1816 were aimed at lucrative Southern markets. Many Northern politicians were looking at wealthy plantation owners and wanting to share that wealth with their constituents and tariffs were the means by which to accomplish this goal. Protectionist fervor, fanned by pre-1816 success creating industrial growth through the Embargo Act was somewhat muted by shippers and merchants who opposed tariffs, but in 1820 and 1824 the United States once again was trying to increase tariffs. 

The Tariff of 1828 precipitated the first secessionist crisis, in South Carolina in 1832. The battle pitted Vice-President John C. Calhoun against President Andy Jackson, ending with the Nullification Crisis. Luckily, another compromise was reached, courtesy of Henry Clay, and the crisis was avoided. Part of the compromise included a roll-back of tariffs to the 1816 levels over a 10-year period. 

When the period was up, however, the pro-Tariff Whigs decided to reapply them to pay for their "internal improvements." The only problem was these internal improvements benefited Northern shipping interests and Western land speculators and not the South. For example, lighthouses had always been state-owned and run. The Northern shipping magnates wanted more lighthouses in the South and when state governments said no, they simply nationalized existing lighthouses and began increasing the number with the tariffs. Tariffs are generally considered to be a "Lost Cause" of the Civil War, but the cited example is directly out of the Georgia Causes of Secession document.


----------



## TheOldSchool

I think I'll bookmark this thread.  Nice job Roguewave


----------



## JakeStarkey

There is no "hot debate" on this issue.

Lincoln told the South (1) obey constitutional, electoral process, (2) keep your hands of federal property, and (3) keep the slaves in the Old South.

The South said "no", fired on Ft. Sumter and was executed for it.


----------



## eagle1462010

JakeStarkey said:


> There is no "hot debate" on this issue.
> 
> Lincoln told the South (1) obey constitutional, electoral process, (2) keep your hands of federal property, and (3) keep the slaves in the Old South.
> 
> The South said "no", fired on Ft. Sumter and was executed for it.



blah blah blah

1.  Obey or else.............they chose or else...........
2.  Different culture back then............the North Never considered blacks as equals........after the War....
     they coined the term ghetto........where freed slaves lived in squalor working in their factories for wages
     that barely were enough to feed their families living in the ghetto.
3.  OK, lets say the South said fine..............they are free.......NOW WHAT.........where do they go......how do
     they live..........they would have lived in Southern Ghettos working for squalor the same as the North and 
     would have been forced to go work the farms anyway........
4.  The population differences gave the North the House plain and simple, so the areas like tariffs killed the 
     economy in the early years.............
5.  2 major depressions happened during this time causing suffering in the United States that would nearly 
     equal the Great Depression.
6.  Women of this time period where not considered equal........It took a long time for Women to get the right to 
     vote here.

There were plenty of divisions back then over the time period.  It was a divided nation.

Take it into today's terms................If the left were to somehow pass their WET DREAM of BANNING GUNS HERE......................People like me all over the country would tell them to FO>.......should the GOV't attempt to take the guns by force............THEN WE WOULD HAVE ANOTHER CIVIL WAR.

SLAVERY was wrong................PERIOD...............but I live in a time that is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT IN CULTURE...........back then the North didn't really accept them..........and then abused them in the factories for slave wages..................

SLAVERY EXISTS TODAY...............the Far East sells their people to places like the Middle East who are considered their property..............

Should we TODAY DECIDE TO END WORLD SLAVERY..............and say to the Middle East that you will end SLAVERY OR ELSE.........................................


----------



## JakeStarkey

blah blah blah yourself

The War happened because the South would not follow constitutional, electoral process, attacked the North, and Lincoln murdered the South.

ps: Oh, look up fallacy of false comparison as well as fallacy of present-ism


----------



## eagle1462010

JakeStarkey said:


> blah blah blah yourself
> 
> The War happened because the South would not follow constitutional, electoral process, attacked the North, and Lincoln murdered the South.
> 
> ps: Oh, look up fallacy of false comparison as well as fallacy of present-ism



They passed a law that would have economically destroyed the South whether you like it or not, or believe in it or not...............they would rather die than OBEY...............

and the rest is history...........MR. FAKEY.


----------



## eagle1462010

ps: Oh, look up fallacy of false comparison as well as fallacy of present-ism

bs.................beliefs and cultures change over time............so what someone believes today would be not be accepted in the culture of yesterday................

TAKE SAME SEX MARRIAGE............during the time of say WWII and earlier............do you think this movement would even be given the time of day..........

How about this............go back in time during WWI or WWII and burn the American Flag and see what would happen to you..............

Times change as do people's opinions on issues............based on what the norm is now versus then.


----------



## TheOldSchool




----------



## eagle1462010

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/opinion/12freeman.html

HE announcement that Representatives Heath Shuler of North Carolina and Jason Chaffetz of Utahare planning to wear guns in their home districts has surprised many, but in fact the United States has had armed congressmen before. In the rough-and-tumble Congress of the 1830s, 1840s and 1850s, politicians regularly wore weapons on the House and Senate floors, and sometimes used them.

During one 1836 melee in the House, a witness observed representatives with “pistols in hand.” In a committee hearing that same year, one House member became so enraged at the testimony of a witness that he reached for his gun; when the terrified witness refused to return, he was brought before the House on a charge of contempt.

Perhaps most dramatic of all, during a debate in 1850, Senator Henry Foote of Mississippi pulled a pistol on Senator Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri. (Someone eventually took it from his hand.) Foote had decided in advance that if he felt threatened, he would grab his gun and run for the aisle in the hope that stray shots wouldn’t hit bystanders.

Most famously, in 1856, Representative Preston Brooks of South Carolina caned Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts on the Senate floor so brutally that Sumner had to be virtually carried from the chamber — and did not retake his seat for three years. Clearly, wielded with brute force, a cane could be a potent weapon.

By the 1850s, violence was common in Washington. Not long after Sumner’s caning, a magazine told the story of a Michigan judge who traveled by train to the nation’s capital: “As he entered the main hall of the depot, he saw a man engaged in caning another ferociously, all over the room. ‘When I saw this,’ says the judge, ‘I knew I was in Washington.’”


----------



## eagle1462010

Would the actions of post #!6 be allowed today......................

Would a DUAL be allowed today as in the time frame we are talking about....................

Again...................the culture of the time matters to understand the underlying causes..........it is not purely black and white.


----------



## eagle1462010

TheOldSchool said:


>


----------



## eagle1462010

A very heavy price was paid by both sides.............the Union survived.............otherwise we would have ended up like Europe which would have led to endless wars in this country...................

I will continue to state my opinions that slavery alone was not the only or sole reason for the civil War.........that doesn't mean I agree with Slavery...............

That doesn't mean  that I don't believe their were sadistic assholes in the South involved in Slavery...........

but my posts are attempting to show that other factors were involved................

If you don't agree, then so be it.............as always I'll state my opinions whether you like it or not......and if you disagree I will not lose sleep over it.


----------



## WelfareQueen

The North.....specifically New England....was the first section of the U.S. to threaten succession. 


Hartford Convention - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


The divisions that separated North from South were there from the beginning.  Slavery was an issue....but but no means the only issue.  And yes....Lincoln was a despot.  He forced Virginia into the Civil War by illegally drafting troops from Virginia to fight for the Union. 

Many things Lincoln did were completely unconstitutional and deeply wrong.  Those that support him say the ends justified the means.  

Maybe....but are we not a Nation of Laws?


----------



## James Everett

Rogue 9 said:


> Despite the fact that it has been over for 149 years, the American Civil War's causes, the motives behind the secession of the Deep South, and even the legality of secession itself are still matters of hot debate in historical circles. There has been so much historical revisionism on the subject (on both sides, no less), that it has become difficult to get a clear account of the reasons behind it, although the facts of the actual events are widely available.
> 
> In this thread, I'm going to lay out the facts as I see them. I freely admit to being a Unionist and ardent anti-Confederate, but feel that these are positions borne out by the objective facts of the matter rather than damaging biases. Make of that what you will.
> 
> First, the motives behind secession.
> 
> Too often, you will see apologists for the Confederacy claiming that the South did what it did because they saw that Abraham Lincoln was a despotic tyrant in the making, that he would subjugate the rights of the people and crush the states beneath the boot of the federal government. "Lincoln the Tyrant" is a popular trope, spurred onward by the usual grain of truth that gives such things their lasting appeal: Abraham Lincoln did, as President, suspend _habeas corpus_, raise an army without the consent of Congress, and, yes, ordered the forfeit of property on the part of Confederates (i.e. freed the slaves, though it's not often put like that in a criticism for obvious reasons). You see this repeated over and over in neo-Confederate and anarchocapitalist circles; for instance, a look through the titles of Thomas DiLorenzo's essays shows an obsession with writing extensive character attacks on President Lincoln, and while probably the most prolific, he's not the only one.
> 
> There are obvious problems with this approach, however.  The most glaring is that none of the things that Lincoln did that earn so much scorn could have been done outside the context of the Civil War.  In other words, far from predicting Lincoln's behavior and seceding to avoid it, the southern states were the catalyst for his behavior!  After all, had there been no insurrection, there would have been no need to arrest insurrectionists, raise an army to suppress the insurrection, and emancipate the slaves in Confederate-held territory as a war measure.  (More on the scope of the Emancipation Proclamation later.)
> 
> The other problem, of course, is that there is no shortage of primary source documents from the Confederate governments themselves stating exactly why they seceded.  I see no reason to disbelieve them, so without further ado, the various Declarations of the Causes of Secession from several Confederate states.  I have excerpted them for brevity's sake, but the complete text of each may be found at the links provided.
> 
> Texas: Declaration of the Causes of Secession
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union.
> 
> The government of the United States, by certain joint resolutions, bearing date the 1st day of March, in the year A.D. 1845, proposed to the Republic of Texas, then a free, sovereign and independent nation, the annexation of the latter to the former, as one of the co-equal states thereof,
> 
> The people of Texas, by deputies in convention assembled, on the fourth day of July of the same year, assented to and accepted said proposals and formed a constitution for the proposed State, upon which on the 29th day of December in the same year, said State was formally admitted into the Confederated Union.
> 
> Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association.
> 
> ...
> 
> When we advert to the course of individual non-slave-holding States, and that a majority of their citizens, our grievances assume far greater magnitude.
> 
> The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article *[the fugitive slave clause*] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation...
> 
> In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.
> 
> For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States.
> 
> By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress,
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's kind of what the majority does in a republic. Moving on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments.
> 
> They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a 'higher law' than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights.
> 
> They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.
> 
> They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offenses, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved.
> 
> ...
> 
> And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States.
> 
> In view of these and many other facts, it is meet that our own views should be distinctly proclaimed.
> 
> We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.
> 
> That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.
> 
> By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> South Carolina also chimes in, with this gem: South Carolina: Declaration of the Causes of Secession
> 
> 
> 
> Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union
> 
> The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.
> 
> And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.
> 
> ...
> 
> The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
> 
> *This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made.* The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.
> 
> The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.
> 
> The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.
> 
> The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
> 
> These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.
> 
> We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
> 
> ...
> 
> On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
> 
> ...
> 
> We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And most egregiously, Mississippi: Mississippi: Declaration of the Causes of Secession
> 
> 
> 
> A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
> 
> In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
> 
> Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
> 
> That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.
> 
> The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.
> 
> The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.
> 
> The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.
> 
> It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.
> 
> It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.
> 
> It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.
> 
> It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.
> 
> It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.
> 
> It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.
> 
> It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.
> 
> ...
> 
> Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.
> 
> Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even for those seceding states that did not publish official Declarations of Causes, we may learn much from their secession convention delegates.  For instance, this address of George Williamson, a Commissioner for the state of Louisiana, to the Texas secession convention, March 9, 1861.  Illustrates slavery as a secession aim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To the Hon. O.M. Roberts, President of the Convention of the People of Texas.
> 
> Mr. President and Gentlemen of the people of Texas.
> 
> I have the honor to address you as the commissioner of the people of Louisiana, accredited to your honorable body.
> 
> ...
> 
> The people of Louisiana were unwilling to endanger their liberties and property by submission to the despotism of a single tyrant, or the canting tyranny of pharisaical majorities. Insulted by the denial of her constitutional equality by the non-slaveholding States, outraged by their contemptuous rejection of proffered compromises, and convinced that she was illustrating the capacity of her people for self-government by withdrawing from a union that had failed, without fault of hers, to accomplish its purposes, she declared herself a free and independent State on the 26th day of January last. History affords no example of a people who changed their government for more just or substantial reasons. Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery, and of the free institutions of the founders of the Federal Union, bequeathed to their posterity. As her neighbor and sister State, she desires the hearty co-operation of Texas in the formation of a Southern Confederacy. She congratulates herself on the recent disposition evinced by your body to meet this wish, by the election of delegates to the Montgomery convention. Louisiana and Texas have the same language, laws and institutions. Between the citizens of each exists the most cordial social and commercial intercourse. The Red river and the Sabine form common highways for the transportation of their produce to the markets of the world. Texas affords to the commerce of Louisiana a large portion of her products, and in exchange the banks of New Orleans furnish Texas with her only paper circulating medium. Louisiana supplies to Texas a market for her surplus wheat, grain and stock; both States have large areas of fertile, uncultivated lands, peculiarly adapted to slave labor; and *they are both so deeply interested in African slavery that it may be said to be absolutely necessary to their existence, and is the keystone to the arch of their prosperity.* ...
> 
> The people of Louisiana would consider it a most fatal blow to African slavery, if Texas either did not secede or having seceded should not join her destinies to theirs in a Southern Confederacy. If she remains in the union the abolitionists would continue their work of incendiarism and murder. Emigrant aid societies would arm with Sharp's rifles predatory bands to infest her northern borders. The Federal Government would mock at her calamity in accepting the recent bribes in the army bill and Pacific railroad bill, and with abolition treachery would leave her unprotected frontier to the murderous inroads of hostile savages. Experience justifies these expectations. A professedly friendly federal administration gave Texas no substantial protection against the Indians or abolitionists, and what must she look for from an administration avowedly inimical and supported by no vote within her borders. Promises won from the timid and faithless are poor hostages of good faith. As a separate republic, Louisiana remembers too well the whisperings of European diplomacy for the abolition of slavery in the times of annexation not to be apprehensive of bolder demonstrations from the same quarter and the North in this country. The people of the slaveholding States are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery. The isolation of any one of them from the others would make her a theatre for abolition emissaries from the North and from Europe. Her existence would be one of constant peril to herself and of imminent danger to other neighboring slave-holding communities. A decent respect for the opinions and interests of the Gulf States seems to indicate that Texas should co-operate with them. I am authorized to say to your honorable body that Louisiana does not expect any beneficial result from the peace conference now assembled at Washington. She is unwilling that her action should depend on the border States. Her interests are identical with Texas and the seceding States. With them she will at present co-operate, hoping and believing in his own good time God will awaken the people of the border States to the vanity of asking for, or depending upon, guarantees or compromises wrung from a people whose consciences are too sublimated to be bound by that sacred compact, the constitution of the late United States. That constitution the Southern States have never violated, and taking it as the basis of our new government we hope to form a slave-holding confederacy that will secure to us and our remotest posterity the great blessings its authors designed in the Federal Union. With the social balance wheel of slavery to regulate its machinery, we may fondly indulge the hope that our Southern government will be perpetual.
> 
> Geo. Williamson
> Commissioner of the State of Louisiana
> City of Austin Feby 11th 1861.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To hear from yet another Deep South state, a speech of E.S. Dargan to the Secession Convention of Alabama, January 11, 1861.
> 
> 
> 
> I wish, Mr. President, to express the feelings with which I vote for the secession of Alabama from the Government of the United States; and to state, in a few words, the reasons that impel me to this act.
> 
> I feel impelled, Mr. President, to vote for this Ordinance by an overruling necessity. Years ago I was convinced that the Southern States would be compelled either to separate from the North, by dissolving the Federal Government, or they would be compelled to abolish the institution of African Slavery. This, in my judgment, was the only alternative; and I foresaw that the South would be compelled, at some day, to make her selection. The day is now come, and Alabama must make her selection, either to secede from the Union, and assume the position of a sovereign, independent State, or she must submit to a system of policy on the part of the Federal Government that, in a short time, will compel her to abolish African Slavery.
> 
> Mr. President, if pecuniary loss alone were involved in the abolition of slavery, I should hesitate long before I would give the vote I now intend to give. If the destruction of slavery entailed on us poverty alone, I could bear it, for I have seen poverty and felt its sting. But poverty, Mr. President, would be one of the least of the evils that would befall us from the abolition of African slavery. There are now in the slaveholding States over four millions of slaves; dissolve the relation of master and slave, and what, I ask, would become of that race? To remove them from amongst us is impossible. History gives us no account of the exodus of such a number of persons. We neither have a place to which to remove them, nor the means of such removal. They therefore must remain with us; and if the relation of master and slave be dissolved, and our slaves turned loose amongst us without restraint, they would either be destroyed by our own hands - the hands to which they look, and look with confidence, for protection - or we ourselves would become demoralized and degraded. *The former result would take place, and we ourselves would become the executioners of our own slaves.* To this extent would the policy of our Northern enemies drive us; and thus would we not only be reduced to poverty, but what is still worse, we should be driven to crime, to the commission of sin; and we must, therefore, this day elect between the Government formed by our fathers (the whole spirit of which has been perverted), and POVERTY AND CRIME! This being the alternative, I cannot hesitate for a moment what my duty is. I must separate from the Government of my fathers, the one under which I have lived, and under which I wished to die. But I must do my duty to my country and my fellow beings; and humanity, in my judgment, demands that Alabama should separate herself from the Government of the United States.
> 
> If I am wrong in this responsible act, I hope my God may forgive me; for I am not actuated, as I think, from any motive save that of justice and philanthropy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Abolition would *force them to commit murder, nay, genocide* in his view, because that would be better than being "degraded" by having free blacks in their midst.
> 
> And to put the final nail in the coffin, we go to the Vice President of the Confederate States, speaking of the new Confederate Constitution. Alexander H. Stephens: Cornerstone Address
> 
> 
> 
> March 21, 1861
> We are in the midst of one of the greatest epochs in our history. The last ninety days will mark one of the most memorable eras in the history of modern civilization.
> 
> ...
> 
> But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other-though last, not least: the new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions-African slavery as it exists among us-the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. *This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.* Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the Constitution, was the prevailing idea at the time. The Constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly used against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it-when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."
> 
> Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; *its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.* This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, *based upon* this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It is so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North who still cling to these errors with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind; from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is, forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics: their conclusions are right if their premises are. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights, with the white man.... I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the Northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery; that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle-a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of man. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds we should succeed, and that he and his associates in their crusade against our institutions would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as well as in physics and mechanics, I admitted, but told him it was he and those acting with him who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.
> 
> In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.
> 
> As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are, and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo-it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not therefore look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first Government ever instituted upon principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many Governments have been founded upon the principles of certain classes; but the classes thus enslaved, were of the same race, and in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws. The negro by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, [note: A reference to Genesis, 9:20-27, which was used as a justification for slavery] is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite-then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is the best, not only for the superior but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances or to question them. For His own purposes He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made "one star to differ from another in glory."
> 
> The great objects of humanity are best attained, when conformed to his laws and degrees, in the formation of Governments as well as in all things else. Our Confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders "is become the chief stone of the corner" in our new edifice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And just as a reminder of what change in the Confederate Constitution he referred to:
> 
> 
> 
> Constitution of the Confederate States said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Parts in red are relevant. The section of the Texas Declaration in blue admits that Texas surrendered her separate national character.
> 
> I should think that this lays to rest claims that the southern states were benevolently attempting to avoid general oppression; they rather acted in order to keep a large segment of their own populations oppressed.
> 
> Ah, but regardless of their reasons, moral or immoral, it was the right of the states to end the compact of the Constitution, cries out the Libertarian circle!  It was never the intention of the Founders to forever bind the states against their wills, and they intentionally left the door open to secession by not explicitly banning it in the Constitution!  Lincoln's actions, therefore, forever and improperly removed a natural right of the states, a safeguard against future tyranny.
> 
> Well, no.  Let's look at the intentions of the Founders.  Secession did indeed occur to them; after all, the Hartford Convention at which a minority of New England delegates advocated secession had happened during their lifetimes and many were still alive during the Nullification Crisis of the 1830s.  There are therefore many writings from several Founding Fathers to draw from.  At random, let's start with James Madison.  From this letter to William Rives.
> 
> 
> 
> The milliners it appears, endeavor to shelter themselves under a distinction between a delegation and a surrender of powers. But if the powers be attributes of sovereignty & nationality & the grant of them be perpetual, *as is necessarily implied*, where not otherwise expressed, *sovereignty & nationality according to the extent of the grant are effectually transferred by it*, and a dispute about the name, is but a battle of words. The practical result is not indeed left to argument or inference. *The words of the Constitution are explicit that the Constitution & laws of the U. S. shall be supreme over the Constitution & laws of the several States, supreme in their exposition and execution as well as in their authority. Without a supremacy in those respects it would be like a scabbard in the hand of a soldier without a sword in it. The imagination itself is startled at the idea of twenty four independent expounders of a rule that cannot exist, but in a meaning and operation, the same for all.*
> 
> The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not only the question of nullification, but the more formidable one of secession. It is asked whether a State by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the Union, may not of right withdraw from it at will. As this is a simple question whether a State, more than an individual, has a right to violate its engagements, it would seem that it might be safely left to answer itself. But the countenance given to the claim shows that it cannot be so lightly dismissed. The natural feelings which laudably attach the people composing a State, to its authority and importance, are at present too much excited by the unnatural feelings, with which they have been inspired agst their brethren of other States, not to expose them, to the danger of being misled into *erroneous views of the nature of the Union* and the interest they have in it. One thing at least seems to be too clear to be questioned, that whilst a State remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution & laws of the Union. In the event of an actual secession without the Consent of the Co States, the course to be pursued by these involves questions painful in the discussion of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Madison actually considered the idea of unilateral secession so preposterous that until it actually came up when South Carolina first threatened it he felt there was no need to even mention it, and was astonished that he should have to.  He also references the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution as proof positive that the states had no such ability, something that modern neo-Confederates tend to deny.  Given that he wrote the thing, I should think I trust Madison's interpretation of it. Also note that he asserts that sovereignty and nationality lay with the United States, not the individual states.
> 
> And now for the thoughts of the man commonly referred to as the father of our country, George Washington, chairman of the Constitutional Convention and first President.  This is from his Circular to the States.
> 
> 
> 
> There are four things, which I humbly conceive, are essential to the well being, I may even venture to say, to the existence of the United States as an Independent Power:
> 
> 1st. An *indissoluble Union of the States* under one Federal Head.
> 
> 2dly. A Sacred regard to Public Justice.
> 
> 3dly. The adoption of a proper Peace Establishment, and
> 
> 4thly. The prevalence of that pacific and friendly Disposition, among the People of the United States, which will induce them to forget their local prejudices and policies, to make those mutual concessions which are requisite to the general prosperity, and in some instances, to sacrifice their individual advantages to the interest of the Community.
> 
> ...
> 
> Under the first head, altho' it may not be necessary or proper for me in this place to enter into a particular disquisition of the principles of the Union, and to take up the great question which has been frequently agitated, whether it be expedient and requisite for the States to delegate a larger proportion of Power to Congress, or not, Yet it will be a part of my duty, and that of every true Patriot, to assert without reserve, and to insist upon the following positions, That unless the States will suffer Congress to exercise those prerogatives, they are undoubtedly invested with by the Constitution, every thing must very rapidly tend to Anarchy and confusion, That it is indispensable to the happiness of the individual States, that there should be lodged somewhere, a Supreme Power to regulate and govern the general concerns of the Confederated Republic, without which the Union cannot be of long duration. That there must be a faithful and pointed compliance on the part of every State, with the late proposals and demands of Congress, or the most fatal consequences will ensue, *That whatever measures have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or contribute to violate or lessen the Sovereign Authority, ought to be considered as hostile to the Liberty and Independency of America, and the Authors of them treated accordingly*, and lastly, that unless we can be enabled by the concurrence of the States, to participate of the fruits of the Revolution, and enjoy the essential benefits of Civil Society, under a form of Government so free and uncorrupted, so happily guarded against the danger of oppression, as has been devised and adopted by the Articles of Confederation, it will be a subject of regret, that so much blood and treasure have been lavished for no purpose, that so many sufferings have been encountered without a compensation, and that so many sacrifices have been made in vain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ouch.  That one's got to sting, especially since many neo-Confederates actually hold Washington as a hero.  There was in fact a portrait of him dominating the front wall of the hall in Montgomery where the Confederate Constitution was drawn up.
> 
> But these are the opinions of men.  What does that Supreme Law of the Land say, actually?  Often the Tenth Amendment is cited as a grant of the power to break up the Union.  That Amendment:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States Constitution said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But this explicitly applies to powers not delegated to the United States.  So let's see what is.
> 
> 
> 
> United States Constitution said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, *suppress Insurrections* and repel Invasions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Insurrection and rebellion are obviously illegal; otherwise there would be no provision for suppressing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States Constitution said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, if rebellion is legal, why the injunction against it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States Constitution said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, *keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War*, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, if you need the consent of Congress to raise an army, then it would seem that just leaving would be out; after all, if you can just leave, why bother having such a restriction?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States Constitution said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treason against the United States, shall consist only in *levying War against them*, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaks for itself, I think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States Constitution said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory* or other Property belonging to the United States; and *nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States*, or of any particular State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This one's the kicker.  When taken in the context of the Supremacy Clause, we see that the states cannot violate the territorial sovereignty of the United States.  Secession is such a violation.  Here is that Clause, which is the one Madison referred to in his letter to Senator Rives:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States Constitution said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, *shall be the supreme Law of the Land*; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, *any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where is the right to secede?  I'm certainly not seeing it.  Incidentally, if that was such a big deal to the Confederate States, you would think they would have seen fit to include it in their own constitution.  They did not.  In fact, the only change they made which affects the ability of states to leave their union is this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confederate Constitution said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a *permanent federal government*, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So much for the right of secession.
> 
> Now, none of this is to say that the North was all sweetness and light.  It was not. While slavery was the proximate cause of the initial secessions, and therefore the ultimate cause of the war, freeing the slaves was not the North's motive in prosecuting the war. Rather, the North was motivated primarily to preserve the Union; while Lincoln was personally an abolitionist, he did not believe it within his power as President to free the slaves. (Ironic, since he did take several powers normally reserved for Congress - namely, suspension of _habeus corpus_ and calling out the militia to suppress insurrection - upon himself in the interim between his inauguration and Congress coming to session.)
> 
> The Emancipation Proclamation was indeed a great step, but it was first and foremost a war measure.  Slave states which did not secede from the Union were permitted to keep their slaves until the passage of the 13th Amendment.  In fact, prior to the Proclamation, Lincoln rescinded orders by Generals John Frémont and David Hunter freeing the slaves in areas of the Confederacy they had captured; he dismissed Frémont when the general refused the President's orders to reverse his decision.
> 
> It was political reality that making the war about slavery would likely have cost Lincoln the war (Ulysses S. Grant said he would resign if he thought the war's objective was to free the slaves, and the border states would likely have simply seceded themselves), but that doesn't change the fact that the Union's prosecution of the war was not to free the slaves; it just makes it more excusable.
> 
> However, what is not excusable is the South's behavior prior to and during the Civil War. War would not have happened without secession. The initial secessions were without doubt motivated by a desire to maintain and expand chattel slavery (secessions after Lincoln took office were motivated by an unwillingness to contribute troops to fight the South, but again, without slavery none of it would have happened), and that is what matters to the causes of the war.
Click to expand...


----------



## James Everett

It appears that the author of this post does not know the definition of "Insurrection".  
Insurrection as defined in Johnson's Dictionary of the English language (1755) edition is ....
Insurre'ction. n.f. {injurga Latin.] A
seditious rifing ; *a rebellious commotion**.*
Rebellion is defined as meaning....
ReBc'llion. n, f. [rtbellion, French;
*Insurrection Against lawful authority.*
So, what we need from the author of this post, is to have him cite the law, or 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutional amendment that makes secession an illegal act. The tenth amendment most certainly applies here, because no power was ever delegated by the States to the collective, (the United States) to prevent secession, hence secession would be a POWER reserved to each State *INDIVIDUALLY*. 
The author of this post cites....
 "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, *suppress Insurrections* and repel Invasions"
However, the author of this post has clearly not bothered to read the Militia Act of 1792, let us review.....
*"It shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper; and in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States,* *on application of the legislature of such state*,_ *or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, or as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection."*_
Two things here to note...
*First,* Under the proper definition of "Insurrection", secession is NOT insurrection because it is NOT rebellion which is defined as *"Insurrection against lawful authority" *So please cite the law, or article within the 1787/1789 U.S, CONstitution which makes secession illegal, (AGAINST LAWFUL AUTHORITY). 
*Second,* We see that Lincoln's hands were tied, as in order for it to be lawful for him to call forth the Militia of the States, to suppress insurrection in any State, it was required that said State legilature must first apply, (REQUEST) assistance in the matter, yet there was no insurrection within any of the Southern States that seceded from the Union, as each State government chose to secede from the union.
Here we see that it was Lincoln who was in rebellion to the U.S. CONstitutions tenth amendment, as well as the 1792 ACT for calling forth the Militia. 
Opinions are a dime a dozen, everyone has one, including George Washington, and James Madison, yet LAW, is Law, and we see that there was then, nor now a law against a State seceding from the union.
The author continues....
*"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."*
Again, there was no rebellion, as there was no law against secession: There must first be a law, for there to be a rebellion, and there was NO LAW against secession. Again Rebellion is "*Insurrection Against lawful authority." PLEASE CITE THE LAW.*
Continuing.... The author next cites..... 
"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, *keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War*, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
Here we must return to the first cause. There was, nor is a law that prevents a State from seceding from the union, therefore once those States LEGALLY exited the union, they were no longer party to the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, therefore, Article I section 10 clause 3, DOES not apply to States that are not, or are no longer party to the U.S. CONstitution....Again, PLEASE CITE THE LAW THAT STATES THAT A STATE CANNOT SECEDE FROM THE UNION.
The author next cites....
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in *levying War against them*, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
Again, the States that LEGALLY exited the union, were no longer party to the U.S. CONstitution, therefore this again is irrelevant to the first cause. Please cite the law that states that a State cannot secede from the union.
The author next cites.....
"*The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory* or other Property belonging to the United States; and *nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States*, or of any particular State."
Here we must examine what the SCOTUS opinion was in the case of ....
*Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 3 How. 212 212 (1845)*

*Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan*

*44 U.S. (3 How.) 212
"*The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama,* or any of the new States, *were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States
The shores of navigable waters, and the soils under them, were not granted by the Constitution to the United States, but were reserved to the States respectively, (individually) and the new States have the same rights, sovereignty, and jurisdiction over this subject as the original States. *Upon the admission of Alabama into the union, the right of eminent domain, which had been temporarily held by the United States, passed to the State*."
None of the land within the seceded Southern State, neither the shores of navigable waters, NOR the soils under them belonged to the U.S. but the municipal jurisdiction belonged to each State INDIVIDUALLY.
Next, the author cites....
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, *shall be the supreme Law of the Land*; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, *any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding*."
No argument here, except that the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution nor any law mentions secession, therefore if there is no law against, or mention of secession within the U.S. CONstitution, then it is not supreme because that POWER is retained by each State individually, hence each State is the lawful authority on the issue.
I am almost finished here....
The author asks concerning the 1861 Constitution for the CSA....
So where is the right to secede?
The author then cites.....
"We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a *permanent federal government*, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity..."
The author clearly does not understand either the U.S. 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutional system, nor the 1861 CSA Constitutional system. Both contain a cobbled together federal system and a national system, to assert that there will be a permanent federal system, has nothing to do with preventing secession, it simply means that there will always be a federal system in place in the operation of the Confederacy, unlike what has occurred with the U.S. which via the 17th amendment to that CONstitution, the federal portion was removed, leaving ONLY a national system in place. It is simply to go along with a fiction to refer to the current U.S. government as a "Federal Government" when the federal portion no longer exists within it. (Please see the CONstitutional debates #39).
*In closing, as horrible as Slavery may have been, there was no law established preventing it, therefore to state that the war was over slavery, simply means that Lincoln and the Northern States were in rebellion against the lawful authority of the U.S. tenth amendment by attempting to end it via exclusion of the legal process of passing a law against it first. As for the  moral aspect,,,,Well there is that whole extermination of the Native American Indian thing perpetuated by the U.S. Government even after ending Slavery without due process of law. LAW is LAW.....*


----------



## JakeStarkey

Nonsense, guys, but since the South refused to follow constitutional, electoral process and then attacked the national government, in effect pissing on Old Glory and the Patriot Fathers, the President and Congress constitutionally, electorally empowered and responsible for suppressing insurrection.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> Nonsense, guys, but since the South refused to follow constitutional, electoral process and then attacked the national government, in effect pissing on Old Glory and the Patriot Fathers, the President and Congress constitutionally, electorally empowered and responsible for suppressing insurrection.


JakeStarkey, please explain how "South refused to follow constitutional, electoral process and then attacked the national government."  Just because Lincoln was not allowed on the ballot in the Southern States was not a violation of the electoral process, and certainly not law. YOUR two party duopoly control the electoral process in your U.S. to this day, not allowing third party candidates to appear on the ballot in many States in each electoral process. Please cite the law which made secession an illegal act, which would then make such rise to "Insurrection". All you need do, is cite the law, Article within your U.S. CONstitution, or the amendment that makes secession illegal or unlawful, then your claim of "Insurrection" may hold water. Even so, as I have posted, the 1793 act for calling forth the Militia by the Executive requires FIRST, that a State legislature make an application, (Request) of the Executive before the Executive may act.


----------



## James Everett

James Everett said:


> It appears that the author of this post does not know the definition of "Insurrection".
> Insurrection as defined in Johnson's Dictionary of the English language (1755) edition is ....
> Insurre'ction. n.f. {injurga Latin.] A
> seditious rifing ; *a rebellious commotion**.*
> Rebellion is defined as meaning....
> ReBc'llion. n, f. [rtbellion, French;
> *Insurrection Against lawful authority.*
> So, what we need from the author of this post, is to have him cite the law, or 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutional amendment that makes secession an illegal act. The tenth amendment most certainly applies here, because no power was ever delegated by the States to the collective, (the United States) to prevent secession, hence secession would be a POWER reserved to each State *INDIVIDUALLY*.
> The author of this post cites....
> "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, *suppress Insurrections* and repel Invasions"
> However, the author of this post has clearly not bothered to read the Militia Act of 1792, let us review.....
> *"It shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper; and in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States,* *on application of the legislature of such state*,_ *or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, or as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection."*_
> Two things here to note...
> *First,* Under the proper definition of "Insurrection", secession is NOT insurrection because it is NOT rebellion which is defined as *"Insurrection against lawful authority" *So please cite the law, or article within the 1787/1789 U.S, CONstitution which makes secession illegal, (AGAINST LAWFUL AUTHORITY).
> *Second,* We see that Lincoln's hands were tied, as in order for it to be lawful for him to call forth the Militia of the States, to suppress insurrection in any State, it was required that said State legilature must first apply, (REQUEST) assistance in the matter, yet there was no insurrection within any of the Southern States that seceded from the Union, as each State government chose to secede from the union.
> Here we see that it was Lincoln who was in rebellion to the U.S. CONstitutions tenth amendment, as well as the 1792 ACT for calling forth the Militia.
> Opinions are a dime a dozen, everyone has one, including George Washington, and James Madison, yet LAW, is Law, and we see that there was then, nor now a law against a State seceding from the union.
> The author continues....
> *"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."*
> Again, there was no rebellion, as there was no law against secession: There must first be a law, for there to be a rebellion, and there was NO LAW against secession. Again Rebellion is "*Insurrection Against lawful authority." PLEASE CITE THE LAW.*
> Continuing.... The author next cites.....
> "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, *keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War*, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
> Here we must return to the first cause. There was, nor is a law that prevents a State from seceding from the union, therefore once those States LEGALLY exited the union, they were no longer party to the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, therefore, Article I section 10 clause 3, DOES not apply to States that are not, or are no longer party to the U.S. CONstitution....Again, PLEASE CITE THE LAW THAT STATES THAT A STATE CANNOT SECEDE FROM THE UNION.
> The author next cites....
> "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in *levying War against them*, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
> Again, the States that LEGALLY exited the union, were no longer party to the U.S. CONstitution, therefore this again is irrelevant to the first cause. Please cite the law that states that a State cannot secede from the union.
> The author next cites.....
> "*The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory* or other Property belonging to the United States; and *nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States*, or of any particular State."
> Here we must examine what the SCOTUS opinion was in the case of ....
> *Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 3 How. 212 212 (1845)*
> 
> *Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan*
> 
> *44 U.S. (3 How.) 212
> "*The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama,* or any of the new States, *were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States
> The shores of navigable waters, and the soils under them, were not granted by the Constitution to the United States, but were reserved to the States respectively, (individually) and the new States have the same rights, sovereignty, and jurisdiction over this subject as the original States. *Upon the admission of Alabama into the union, the right of eminent domain, which had been temporarily held by the United States, passed to the State*."
> None of the land within the seceded Southern State, neither the shores of navigable waters, NOR the soils under them belonged to the U.S. but the municipal jurisdiction belonged to each State INDIVIDUALLY.
> Next, the author cites....
> "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, *shall be the supreme Law of the Land*; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, *any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding*."
> No argument here, except that the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution nor any law mentions secession, therefore if there is no law against, or mention of secession within the U.S. CONstitution, then it is not supreme because that POWER is retained by each State individually, hence each State is the lawful authority on the issue.
> I am almost finished here....
> The author asks concerning the 1861 Constitution for the CSA....
> So where is the right to secede?
> The author then cites.....
> "We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a *permanent federal government*, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity..."
> The author clearly does not understand either the U.S. 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutional system, nor the 1861 CSA Constitutional system. Both contain a cobbled together federal system and a national system, to assert that there will be a permanent federal system, has nothing to do with preventing secession, it simply means that there will always be a federal system in place in the operation of the Confederacy, unlike what has occurred with the U.S. which via the 17th amendment to that CONstitution, the federal portion was removed, leaving ONLY a national system in place. It is simply to go along with a fiction to refer to the current U.S. government as a "Federal Government" when the federal portion no longer exists within it. (Please see the CONstitutional debates #39).
> *In closing, as horrible as Slavery may have been, there was no law established preventing it, therefore to state that the war was over slavery, simply means that Lincoln and the Northern States were in rebellion against the lawful authority of the U.S. tenth amendment by attempting to end it via exclusion of the legal process of passing a law against it first. As for the  moral aspect,,,,Well there is that whole extermination of the Native American Indian thing perpetuated by the U.S. Government even after ending Slavery without due process of law. LAW is LAW.....*





JakeStarkey said:


> Nonsense, guys, but since the South refused to follow constitutional, electoral process and then attacked the national government, in effect pissing on Old Glory and the Patriot Fathers, the President and Congress constitutionally, electorally empowered and responsible for suppressing insurrection.





JakeStarkey said:


> Nonsense, guys, but since the South refused to follow constitutional, electoral process and then attacked the national government, in effect pissing on Old Glory and the Patriot Fathers, the President and Congress constitutionally, electorally empowered and responsible for suppressing insurrection.


.


----------



## James Everett

Mr. JakeStarkey, Each State legally controls its own ballot access laws.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James Everett said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense, guys, but since the South refused to follow constitutional, electoral process and then attacked the national government, in effect pissing on Old Glory and the Patriot Fathers, the President and Congress constitutionally, electorally empowered and responsible for suppressing insurrection.
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey, please explain how "South refused to follow constitutional, electoral process and then attacked the national government."  Just because Lincoln was not allowed on the ballot in the Southern States was not a violation of the electoral process, and certainly not law. YOUR two party duopoly control the electoral process in your U.S. to this day, not allowing third party candidates to appear on the ballot in many States in each electoral process. Please cite the law which made secession an illegal act, which would then make such rise to "Insurrection". All you need do, is cite the law, Article within your U.S. CONstitution, or the amendment that makes secession illegal or unlawful, then your claim of "Insurrection" may hold water. Even so, as I have posted, the 1793 act for calling forth the Militia by the Executive requires FIRST, that a State legislature make an application, (Request) of the Executive before the Executive may act.
Click to expand...


No, James, that has all been explained over and over and over, so you don't get "just once more."

Contact paperveiw by conversation.  She is the acknowledged unchallenged expert on this issue, on the Board.

If she has time, she may be willing to educate you.

You may ramble all you want in ignorance, but you don't have the power to drag anyone along who corrects you.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense, guys, but since the South refused to follow constitutional, electoral process and then attacked the national government, in effect pissing on Old Glory and the Patriot Fathers, the President and Congress constitutionally, electorally empowered and responsible for suppressing insurrection.
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey, please explain how "South refused to follow constitutional, electoral process and then attacked the national government."  Just because Lincoln was not allowed on the ballot in the Southern States was not a violation of the electoral process, and certainly not law. YOUR two party duopoly control the electoral process in your U.S. to this day, not allowing third party candidates to appear on the ballot in many States in each electoral process. Please cite the law which made secession an illegal act, which would then make such rise to "Insurrection". All you need do, is cite the law, Article within your U.S. CONstitution, or the amendment that makes secession illegal or unlawful, then your claim of "Insurrection" may hold water. Even so, as I have posted, the 1793 act for calling forth the Militia by the Executive requires FIRST, that a State legislature make an application, (Request) of the Executive before the Executive may act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, James, that has all been explained over and over and over, so you don't get "just once more."
> 
> Contact paperveiw by conversation.  She is the acknowledged unchallenged expert on this issue, on the Board.
> 
> If she has time, she may be willing to educate you.
> 
> You may ramble all you want in ignorance, but you don't have the power to drag anyone along who corrects you.
Click to expand...


----------



## James Everett

What has been explained over and over? Who don't get "Just one more"?


----------



## JakeStarkey

No, James, no.

Contact paperview.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> No, James, no.
> 
> Contact paperview.


----------



## James Everett

"No, James, no."
"Contact paperview"?
 Please expound! 
You are not making sense to me.


----------



## Rogue 9

JakeStarkey said:


> No, James, that has all been explained over and over and over, so you don't get "just once more."
> 
> Contact paperveiw by conversation.  She is the acknowledged unchallenged expert on this issue, on the Board.
> 
> If she has time, she may be willing to educate you.
> 
> You may ramble all you want in ignorance, but you don't have the power to drag anyone along who corrects you.


Eh.  He's new, you can't expect him to know everyone else on the board.   


James Everett said:


> It appears that the author of this post does not know the definition of "Insurrection".
> Insurrection as defined in Johnson's Dictionary of the English language (1755) edition is ....
> Insurre'ction. n.f. {injurga Latin.] A
> seditious rifing ; *a rebellious commotion**.*
> Rebellion is defined as meaning....
> ReBc'llion. n, f. [rtbellion, French;
> *Insurrection Against lawful authority.*
> So, what we need from the author of this post, is to have him cite the law, or 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutional amendment that makes secession an illegal act. The tenth amendment most certainly applies here, because no power was ever delegated by the States to the collective, (the United States) to prevent secession, hence secession would be a POWER reserved to each State *INDIVIDUALLY*.
> The author of this post cites....
> "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, *suppress Insurrections* and repel Invasions"
> However, the author of this post has clearly not bothered to read the Militia Act of 1792, let us review.....
> *"It shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper; and in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States,* *on application of the legislature of such state*,_ *or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, or as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection."*_
> Two things here to note...
> *First,* Under the proper definition of "Insurrection", secession is NOT insurrection because it is NOT rebellion which is defined as *"Insurrection against lawful authority" *So please cite the law, or article within the 1787/1789 U.S, CONstitution which makes secession illegal, (AGAINST LAWFUL AUTHORITY).
> *Second,* We see that Lincoln's hands were tied, as in order for it to be lawful for him to call forth the Militia of the States, to suppress insurrection in any State, it was required that said State legilature must first apply, (REQUEST) assistance in the matter, yet there was no insurrection within any of the Southern States that seceded from the Union, as each State government chose to secede from the union.
> Here we see that it was Lincoln who was in rebellion to the U.S. CONstitutions tenth amendment, as well as the 1792 ACT for calling forth the Militia.
> Opinions are a dime a dozen, everyone has one, including George Washington, and James Madison, yet LAW, is Law, and we see that there was then, nor now a law against a State seceding from the union.
> The author continues....
> *"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."*
> Again, there was no rebellion, as there was no law against secession: There must first be a law, for there to be a rebellion, and there was NO LAW against secession. Again Rebellion is "*Insurrection Against lawful authority." PLEASE CITE THE LAW.*
> Continuing.... The author next cites.....
> "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, *keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War*, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
> Here we must return to the first cause. There was, nor is a law that prevents a State from seceding from the union, therefore once those States LEGALLY exited the union, they were no longer party to the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, therefore, Article I section 10 clause 3, DOES not apply to States that are not, or are no longer party to the U.S. CONstitution....Again, PLEASE CITE THE LAW THAT STATES THAT A STATE CANNOT SECEDE FROM THE UNION.
> The author next cites....
> "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in *levying War against them*, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
> Again, the States that LEGALLY exited the union, were no longer party to the U.S. CONstitution, therefore this again is irrelevant to the first cause. Please cite the law that states that a State cannot secede from the union.


Okay, first I'm going to note that this thread isn't about the legality of secession, but rather the root cause of the secessions and the war.  However, since you insist I'll indulge you.  Proceeding:  


James Everett said:


> The author next cites.....
> "*The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory* or other Property belonging to the United States; and *nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States*, or of any particular State."
> Here we must examine what the SCOTUS opinion was in the case of ....
> *Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 3 How. 212 212 (1845)*
> 
> *Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan*
> 
> *44 U.S. (3 How.) 212
> "*The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama,* or any of the new States, *were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States
> The shores of navigable waters, and the soils under them, were not granted by the Constitution to the United States, but were reserved to the States respectively, (individually) and the new States have the same rights, sovereignty, and jurisdiction over this subject as the original States. *Upon the admission of Alabama into the union, the right of eminent domain, which had been temporarily held by the United States, passed to the State*."
> None of the land within the seceded Southern State, neither the shores of navigable waters, NOR the soils under them belonged to the U.S. but the municipal jurisdiction belonged to each State INDIVIDUALLY.


Bloody good for them.  I readily agree that the states have internal municipal jurisdiction, but municipal jurisdiction and national sovereignty are not the same thing.  The question in the case was eminent domain for building a canal in a dispute between private parties; that is an entirely different matter than rending an entire state from the borders of the United States.  The point stands; Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 prohibits the interpretation of anything in the Constitution, Tenth Amendment included, from prejudicing the territorial claims of the United States.  


James Everett said:


> Next, the author cites....
> "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, *shall be the supreme Law of the Land*; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, *any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding*."
> No argument here, except that the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution nor any law mentions secession, therefore if there is no law against, or mention of secession within the U.S. CONstitution, then it is not supreme because that POWER is retained by each State individually, hence each State is the lawful authority on the issue.
> I am almost finished here....


First you need to establish that secession is a normal power of the state.  Interpreted as broadly as can be, the Tenth Amendment permits the states to do literally _anything_ that Congress cannot and the Constitution doesn't bar them from.  This means they can't grant noble titles, sure, but would you argue that it is within the power of the states to establish religion, restrict the press, ban guns, indefinitely detain citizens without charge, quarter the state police (after all, they can't keep _troops_) in people's homes without permission, subject criminal defendants to double jeopardy, or employ cruel and unusual punishment up to and including summary execution?  After all, the Bill of Rights constrains the *federal* government, does it not?  

The Supremacy Clause and 4.3.2 together mean that a state cannot simply remove itself or part of itself from the United States by statute.  There is exactly one method by which this can legally be done, and it wasn't the one they used - namely, ratifying "Amendment XXVIII: South Carolina is withdrawn from the Federal Union."  Instead, they chose to go with armed rebellion, which only works if you win.  They didn't and couldn't.  


James Everett said:


> The author asks concerning the 1861 Constitution for the CSA....
> So where is the right to secede?
> The author then cites.....
> "We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a *permanent federal government*, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity..."
> The author clearly does not understand either the U.S. 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutional system, nor the 1861 CSA Constitutional system. Both contain a cobbled together federal system and a national system, to assert that there will be a permanent federal system, has nothing to do with preventing secession, it simply means that there will always be a federal system in place in the operation of the Confederacy, unlike what has occurred with the U.S. which via the 17th amendment to that CONstitution, the federal portion was removed, leaving ONLY a national system in place. It is simply to go along with a fiction to refer to the current U.S. government as a "Federal Government" when the federal portion no longer exists within it. (Please see the CONstitutional debates #39).


Ha.  If that's true, explain the Confederate treatment of the inhabitants of eastern Tennessee in the environs of Knoxville in 1861.  

Further, the direct election of Senators (the result of that 17th Amendment you so despise) places power in the hands of that power that created the Constitution, we the people, which is exactly where it belongs.  The states still have municipal jurisdiction and many, many powers the federal government cannot interfere in nor take away; we still have a composite federal system.  
*


James Everett said:



			In closing, as horrible as Slavery may have been, there was no law established preventing it, therefore to state that the war was over slavery, simply means that Lincoln and the Northern States were in rebellion against the lawful authority of the U.S. tenth amendment by attempting to end it via exclusion of the legal process of passing a law against it first. As for the  moral aspect,,,,Well there is that whole extermination of the Native American Indian thing perpetuated by the U.S. Government even after ending Slavery without due process of law. LAW is LAW.....
		
Click to expand...

*You ignore that the end of slavery was not a Union war aim, a fact I took pains to point out in the essay.  It became part of the war _strategy_ in the later stages, as an effort to cripple the Slave Power's warmaking capacity (and it's impossible to deny it was effective, since slavery was the underpinning of the entire Southern economy, _which is why they went to war when an anti-slavery candidate was elected to the Presidency to begin with),_ but the Union did not go to war to eradicate slavery, but to preserve itself, defend its borders, and enforce the existing law.


----------



## James Everett

Rogue 9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, James, that has all been explained over and over and over, so you don't get "just once more."
> 
> Contact paperveiw by conversation.  She is the acknowledged unchallenged expert on this issue, on the Board.
> 
> If she has time, she may be willing to educate you.
> 
> You may ramble all you want in ignorance, but you don't have the power to drag anyone along who corrects you.
> 
> 
> 
> Eh.  He's new, you can't expect him to know everyone else on the board.
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that the author of this post does not know the definition of "Insurrection".
> Insurrection as defined in Johnson's Dictionary of the English language (1755) edition is ....
> Insurre'ction. n.f. {injurga Latin.] A
> seditious rifing ; *a rebellious commotion**.*
> Rebellion is defined as meaning....
> ReBc'llion. n, f. [rtbellion, French;
> *Insurrection Against lawful authority.*
> So, what we need from the author of this post, is to have him cite the law, or 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutional amendment that makes secession an illegal act. The tenth amendment most certainly applies here, because no power was ever delegated by the States to the collective, (the United States) to prevent secession, hence secession would be a POWER reserved to each State *INDIVIDUALLY*.
> The author of this post cites....
> "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, *suppress Insurrections* and repel Invasions"
> However, the author of this post has clearly not bothered to read the Militia Act of 1792, let us review.....
> *"It shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper; and in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States,* *on application of the legislature of such state*,_ *or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, or as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection."*_
> Two things here to note...
> *First,* Under the proper definition of "Insurrection", secession is NOT insurrection because it is NOT rebellion which is defined as *"Insurrection against lawful authority" *So please cite the law, or article within the 1787/1789 U.S, CONstitution which makes secession illegal, (AGAINST LAWFUL AUTHORITY).
> *Second,* We see that Lincoln's hands were tied, as in order for it to be lawful for him to call forth the Militia of the States, to suppress insurrection in any State, it was required that said State legilature must first apply, (REQUEST) assistance in the matter, yet there was no insurrection within any of the Southern States that seceded from the Union, as each State government chose to secede from the union.
> Here we see that it was Lincoln who was in rebellion to the U.S. CONstitutions tenth amendment, as well as the 1792 ACT for calling forth the Militia.
> Opinions are a dime a dozen, everyone has one, including George Washington, and James Madison, yet LAW, is Law, and we see that there was then, nor now a law against a State seceding from the union.
> The author continues....
> *"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."*
> Again, there was no rebellion, as there was no law against secession: There must first be a law, for there to be a rebellion, and there was NO LAW against secession. Again Rebellion is "*Insurrection Against lawful authority." PLEASE CITE THE LAW.*
> Continuing.... The author next cites.....
> "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, *keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War*, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
> Here we must return to the first cause. There was, nor is a law that prevents a State from seceding from the union, therefore once those States LEGALLY exited the union, they were no longer party to the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, therefore, Article I section 10 clause 3, DOES not apply to States that are not, or are no longer party to the U.S. CONstitution....Again, PLEASE CITE THE LAW THAT STATES THAT A STATE CANNOT SECEDE FROM THE UNION.
> The author next cites....
> "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in *levying War against them*, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
> Again, the States that LEGALLY exited the union, were no longer party to the U.S. CONstitution, therefore this again is irrelevant to the first cause. Please cite the law that states that a State cannot secede from the union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, first I'm going to note that this thread isn't about the legality of secession, but rather the root cause of the secessions and the war.  However, since you insist I'll indulge you.  Proceeding:
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> The author next cites.....
> "*The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory* or other Property belonging to the United States; and *nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States*, or of any particular State."
> Here we must examine what the SCOTUS opinion was in the case of ....
> *Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 3 How. 212 212 (1845)*
> 
> *Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan*
> 
> *44 U.S. (3 How.) 212
> "*The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama,* or any of the new States, *were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States
> The shores of navigable waters, and the soils under them, were not granted by the Constitution to the United States, but were reserved to the States respectively, (individually) and the new States have the same rights, sovereignty, and jurisdiction over this subject as the original States. *Upon the admission of Alabama into the union, the right of eminent domain, which had been temporarily held by the United States, passed to the State*."
> None of the land within the seceded Southern State, neither the shores of navigable waters, NOR the soils under them belonged to the U.S. but the municipal jurisdiction belonged to each State INDIVIDUALLY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bloody good for them.  I readily agree that the states have internal municipal jurisdiction, but municipal jurisdiction and national sovereignty are not the same thing.  The question in the case was eminent domain for building a canal in a dispute between private parties; that is an entirely different matter than rending an entire state from the borders of the United States.  The point stands; Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 prohibits the interpretation of anything in the Constitution, Tenth Amendment included, from prejudicing the territorial claims of the United States.
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Next, the author cites....
> "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, *shall be the supreme Law of the Land*; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, *any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding*."
> No argument here, except that the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution nor any law mentions secession, therefore if there is no law against, or mention of secession within the U.S. CONstitution, then it is not supreme because that POWER is retained by each State individually, hence each State is the lawful authority on the issue.
> I am almost finished here....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First you need to establish that secession is a normal power of the state.  Interpreted as broadly as can be, the Tenth Amendment permits the states to do literally _anything_ that Congress cannot and the Constitution doesn't bar them from.  This means they can't grant noble titles, sure, but would you argue that it is within the power of the states to establish religion, restrict the press, ban guns, indefinitely detain citizens without charge, quarter the state police (after all, they can't keep _troops_) in people's homes without permission, subject criminal defendants to double jeopardy, or employ cruel and unusual punishment up to and including summary execution?  After all, the Bill of Rights constrains the *federal* government, does it not?
> 
> The Supremacy Clause and 4.3.2 together mean that a state cannot simply remove itself or part of itself from the United States by statute.  There is exactly one method by which this can legally be done, and it wasn't the one they used - namely, ratifying "Amendment XXVIII: South Carolina is withdrawn from the Federal Union."  Instead, they chose to go with armed rebellion, which only works if you win.  They didn't and couldn't.
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> The author asks concerning the 1861 Constitution for the CSA....
> So where is the right to secede?
> The author then cites.....
> "We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a *permanent federal government*, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity..."
> The author clearly does not understand either the U.S. 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutional system, nor the 1861 CSA Constitutional system. Both contain a cobbled together federal system and a national system, to assert that there will be a permanent federal system, has nothing to do with preventing secession, it simply means that there will always be a federal system in place in the operation of the Confederacy, unlike what has occurred with the U.S. which via the 17th amendment to that CONstitution, the federal portion was removed, leaving ONLY a national system in place. It is simply to go along with a fiction to refer to the current U.S. government as a "Federal Government" when the federal portion no longer exists within it. (Please see the CONstitutional debates #39).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha.  If that's true, explain the Confederate treatment of the inhabitants of eastern Tennessee in the environs of Knoxville in 1861.
> 
> Further, the direct election of Senators (the result of that 17th Amendment you so despise) places power in the hands of that power that created the Constitution, we the people, which is exactly where it belongs.  The states still have municipal jurisdiction and many, many powers the federal government cannot interfere in nor take away; we still have a composite federal system.
> *
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> In closing, as horrible as Slavery may have been, there was no law established preventing it, therefore to state that the war was over slavery, simply means that Lincoln and the Northern States were in rebellion against the lawful authority of the U.S. tenth amendment by attempting to end it via exclusion of the legal process of passing a law against it first. As for the  moral aspect,,,,Well there is that whole extermination of the Native American Indian thing perpetuated by the U.S. Government even after ending Slavery without due process of law. LAW is LAW.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You ignore that the end of slavery was not a Union war aim, a fact I took pains to point out in the essay.  It became part of the war _strategy_ in the later stages, as an effort to cripple the Slave Power's warmaking capacity (and it's impossible to deny it was effective, since slavery was the underpinning of the entire Southern economy, _which is why they went to war when an anti-slavery candidate was elected to the Presidency to begin with),_ but the Union did not go to war to eradicate slavery, but to preserve itself, defend its borders, and enforce the existing law.
Click to expand...


----------



## James Everett

Rogue 9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, James, that has all been explained over and over and over, so you don't get "just once more."
> 
> Contact paperveiw by conversation.  She is the acknowledged unchallenged expert on this issue, on the Board.
> 
> If she has time, she may be willing to educate you.
> 
> You may ramble all you want in ignorance, but you don't have the power to drag anyone along who corrects you.
> 
> 
> 
> Eh.  He's new, you can't expect him to know everyone else on the board.
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that the author of this post does not know the definition of "Insurrection".
> Insurrection as defined in Johnson's Dictionary of the English language (1755) edition is ....
> Insurre'ction. n.f. {injurga Latin.] A
> seditious rifing ; *a rebellious commotion**.*
> Rebellion is defined as meaning....
> ReBc'llion. n, f. [rtbellion, French;
> *Insurrection Against lawful authority.*
> So, what we need from the author of this post, is to have him cite the law, or 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutional amendment that makes secession an illegal act. The tenth amendment most certainly applies here, because no power was ever delegated by the States to the collective, (the United States) to prevent secession, hence secession would be a POWER reserved to each State *INDIVIDUALLY*.
> The author of this post cites....
> "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, *suppress Insurrections* and repel Invasions"
> However, the author of this post has clearly not bothered to read the Militia Act of 1792, let us review.....
> *"It shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper; and in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States,* *on application of the legislature of such state*,_ *or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, or as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection."*_
> Two things here to note...
> *First,* Under the proper definition of "Insurrection", secession is NOT insurrection because it is NOT rebellion which is defined as *"Insurrection against lawful authority" *So please cite the law, or article within the 1787/1789 U.S, CONstitution which makes secession illegal, (AGAINST LAWFUL AUTHORITY).
> *Second,* We see that Lincoln's hands were tied, as in order for it to be lawful for him to call forth the Militia of the States, to suppress insurrection in any State, it was required that said State legilature must first apply, (REQUEST) assistance in the matter, yet there was no insurrection within any of the Southern States that seceded from the Union, as each State government chose to secede from the union.
> Here we see that it was Lincoln who was in rebellion to the U.S. CONstitutions tenth amendment, as well as the 1792 ACT for calling forth the Militia.
> Opinions are a dime a dozen, everyone has one, including George Washington, and James Madison, yet LAW, is Law, and we see that there was then, nor now a law against a State seceding from the union.
> The author continues....
> *"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."*
> Again, there was no rebellion, as there was no law against secession: There must first be a law, for there to be a rebellion, and there was NO LAW against secession. Again Rebellion is "*Insurrection Against lawful authority." PLEASE CITE THE LAW.*
> Continuing.... The author next cites.....
> "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, *keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War*, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
> Here we must return to the first cause. There was, nor is a law that prevents a State from seceding from the union, therefore once those States LEGALLY exited the union, they were no longer party to the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, therefore, Article I section 10 clause 3, DOES not apply to States that are not, or are no longer party to the U.S. CONstitution....Again, PLEASE CITE THE LAW THAT STATES THAT A STATE CANNOT SECEDE FROM THE UNION.
> The author next cites....
> "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in *levying War against them*, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
> Again, the States that LEGALLY exited the union, were no longer party to the U.S. CONstitution, therefore this again is irrelevant to the first cause. Please cite the law that states that a State cannot secede from the union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, first I'm going to note that this thread isn't about the legality of secession, but rather the root cause of the secessions and the war.  However, since you insist I'll indulge you.  Proceeding:
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> The author next cites.....
> "*The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory* or other Property belonging to the United States; and *nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States*, or of any particular State."
> Here we must examine what the SCOTUS opinion was in the case of ....
> *Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 3 How. 212 212 (1845)*
> 
> *Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan*
> 
> *44 U.S. (3 How.) 212
> "*The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama,* or any of the new States, *were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States
> The shores of navigable waters, and the soils under them, were not granted by the Constitution to the United States, but were reserved to the States respectively, (individually) and the new States have the same rights, sovereignty, and jurisdiction over this subject as the original States. *Upon the admission of Alabama into the union, the right of eminent domain, which had been temporarily held by the United States, passed to the State*."
> None of the land within the seceded Southern State, neither the shores of navigable waters, NOR the soils under them belonged to the U.S. but the municipal jurisdiction belonged to each State INDIVIDUALLY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bloody good for them.  I readily agree that the states have internal municipal jurisdiction, but municipal jurisdiction and national sovereignty are not the same thing.  The question in the case was eminent domain for building a canal in a dispute between private parties; that is an entirely different matter than rending an entire state from the borders of the United States.  The point stands; Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 prohibits the interpretation of anything in the Constitution, Tenth Amendment included, from prejudicing the territorial claims of the United States.
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Next, the author cites....
> "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, *shall be the supreme Law of the Land*; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, *any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding*."
> No argument here, except that the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution nor any law mentions secession, therefore if there is no law against, or mention of secession within the U.S. CONstitution, then it is not supreme because that POWER is retained by each State individually, hence each State is the lawful authority on the issue.
> I am almost finished here....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First you need to establish that secession is a normal power of the state.  Interpreted as broadly as can be, the Tenth Amendment permits the states to do literally _anything_ that Congress cannot and the Constitution doesn't bar them from.  This means they can't grant noble titles, sure, but would you argue that it is within the power of the states to establish religion, restrict the press, ban guns, indefinitely detain citizens without charge, quarter the state police (after all, they can't keep _troops_) in people's homes without permission, subject criminal defendants to double jeopardy, or employ cruel and unusual punishment up to and including summary execution?  After all, the Bill of Rights constrains the *federal* government, does it not?
> 
> The Supremacy Clause and 4.3.2 together mean that a state cannot simply remove itself or part of itself from the United States by statute.  There is exactly one method by which this can legally be done, and it wasn't the one they used - namely, ratifying "Amendment XXVIII: South Carolina is withdrawn from the Federal Union."  Instead, they chose to go with armed rebellion, which only works if you win.  They didn't and couldn't.
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> The author asks concerning the 1861 Constitution for the CSA....
> So where is the right to secede?
> The author then cites.....
> "We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a *permanent federal government*, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity..."
> The author clearly does not understand either the U.S. 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutional system, nor the 1861 CSA Constitutional system. Both contain a cobbled together federal system and a national system, to assert that there will be a permanent federal system, has nothing to do with preventing secession, it simply means that there will always be a federal system in place in the operation of the Confederacy, unlike what has occurred with the U.S. which via the 17th amendment to that CONstitution, the federal portion was removed, leaving ONLY a national system in place. It is simply to go along with a fiction to refer to the current U.S. government as a "Federal Government" when the federal portion no longer exists within it. (Please see the CONstitutional debates #39).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha.  If that's true, explain the Confederate treatment of the inhabitants of eastern Tennessee in the environs of Knoxville in 1861.
> 
> Further, the direct election of Senators (the result of that 17th Amendment you so despise) places power in the hands of that power that created the Constitution, we the people, which is exactly where it belongs.  The states still have municipal jurisdiction and many, many powers the federal government cannot interfere in nor take away; we still have a composite federal system.
> *
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> In closing, as horrible as Slavery may have been, there was no law established preventing it, therefore to state that the war was over slavery, simply means that Lincoln and the Northern States were in rebellion against the lawful authority of the U.S. tenth amendment by attempting to end it via exclusion of the legal process of passing a law against it first. As for the  moral aspect,,,,Well there is that whole extermination of the Native American Indian thing perpetuated by the U.S. Government even after ending Slavery without due process of law. LAW is LAW.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You ignore that the end of slavery was not a Union war aim, a fact I took pains to point out in the essay.  It became part of the war _strategy_ in the later stages, as an effort to cripple the Slave Power's warmaking capacity (and it's impossible to deny it was effective, since slavery was the underpinning of the entire Southern economy, _which is why they went to war when an anti-slavery candidate was elected to the Presidency to begin with),_ but the Union did not go to war to eradicate slavery, but to preserve itself, defend its borders, and enforce the existing law.
Click to expand...


----------



## Rogue 9

Mr. Everett, the quote function works by quoting the post in editable format so you can get the content of what you're replying to in the post you're making.  Quoting and then posting without typing anything else doesn't do anything except restate what was already said.


----------



## James Everett

In reply to Rogue9.....
The article introduced the legality discussion when the assertion was made that our Southern Confederate States committed
insurrection.

Are you denying the opinion of YOUR SCOTUS to be valid?...

"The shores of navigable waters, and the soils under them, were not granted by the Constitution to the United States, but were reserved to the States respectively, (individually) and the new States have the same rights, sovereignty, and jurisdiction over this subject as the original States."

It is clear that the U.S. Does NOT hold municipal jurisdiction over the land in a State, hence: It does not belong to the collective, but belongs to the State wherein that land exists. The U.S. as a collective is bound by and limited to the sphere wherein the States delegated power to it, and it delegated NO such power to consolidate the States by preventing one from exercising the retained power to exit the union. Again Rogue9, it is your charge to cite the LAW, Article, or amendment to the U.S. COstitution that prevents a State from exiting the union. I see that you have not been able to provide such  power enumerated in the treaty between the States. Further International law states....

"Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties. As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states
When a state withdraws from a multi-lateral treaty, that treaty will still otherwise remain in force among the other parties, unless, of course, otherwise should or could be interpreted as agreed upon between the remaining states parties to the treaty." Now, as I have also posted During the U.S. CONstitutional debates, Gunning Bedford arose and stated....“That at present all of the States are equally sovereign and independent has been asserted from every quarter of this house, Our deliberations here are a confirmation of the position." In other words, ALL WERE IN AGREEMENT THAT THE STATES WERE SOVEREIGNS, hence the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution was a TREATY."

Hamilton states in the CONstitutional debates #32 that....

“the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act,_exclusively_ delegated to the United States.”

Now, Rogue9......
If one is imprisoned can one claim sovereignty without the power to leave his imprisonment, even if that imprisonment was voluntary? Yet we see that the States RETAINED their Sovereignty. Your assertions are contrary to logic.

Rogue9 states.....

"First you need to establish that secession is a normal power of the state. Interpreted as broadly as can be, the Tenth Amendment permits the states to do literally _anything_ that Congress cannot and the Constitution doesn't bar them from. This means they can't grant noble titles, sure, but would you argue that it is within the power of the states to establish religion, restrict the press, ban guns, indefinitely detain citizens without charge, quarter the state police (after all, they can't keep _troops_) in people's homes without permission, subject criminal defendants to double jeopardy, or employ cruel and unusual punishment up to and
including summary execution? After all, the Bill of Rights constrains the *federal*government, does it not? "

Rogue9, You are overlooking the first cause, which is the LAW.....There is, nor was a law established preventing a State from secession, therefore once the State takes that action, then it is no longer party to the U.S. CONstitution, therefore anything regarding its obligations to that treaty after that first legal act of secession, is now invalid/nullified. Once a State has seceded, then it is free to make law as it's citizens choose, this would include everything that you have listed, however ridiculous as those which you have posted.

Next Rogue9 You state....

"The Supremacy Clause and 4.3.2 together mean that a state cannot simply remove itself or part of itself from the United States by statute.".

Here is where that Supremacy is limited to its sphere of delegated authority: James K Polk explains it well.....

“The Constitution itself, plainly written as it is, the safeguard of our federative compact, the offspring of concession and compromise, binding together in the bonds of peace and union this great and increasing family of free and independent States, “
Note here…. “FREE AND INDEPENDENT”….. How can a State be free and Independent, if it cannot freely exit the union?
He further states….
“The Government of the United States is one of delegated and limited powers, and it is by a strict adherence to the clearly granted powers and by abstaining from the exercise of doubtful or unauthorized implied powers”
Note here…..The general government was one of “delegated” and “LIMITED POWERS”.
Who DELEGATED these LIMITED POWERS? The State governments via their representatives DELEGATED those LIMITED POWERS. SUPERIORS DELEGATE TO INFERIORS, INFERIORS DO NOT DELEGATE TO SUPERIORS.
President Polk goes on to state…..
“"To the States, respectively, or to the people" have been reserved "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States." Each State is a complete sovereignty within the sphere of its reserved powers. The Government of the Union, acting within the sphere of its delegated authority, is also a complete sovereignty.”
.Last President Polk states…..
“To the Government of the United States has been intrusted the exclusive management of our foreign affairs. Beyond that it wields a few general enumerated powers. It does not force reform on the States.”

Rogue9, PLEASE CITE THE LAW THAT PREVENTS SECESSION.

Rogue9, then states....

Ha. If that's true, explain the Confederate treatment of the inhabitants of eastern Tennessee in the environs of Knoxville in 1861.

Further, the direct election of Senators (the result of that 17th Amendment you so despise) places power in the hands of that power that created the Constitution, we the people, which is exactly where it belongs. The states still have municipal jurisdiction and many, many powers the federal government cannot interfere in nor take away; we still have a composite federal system.


Rogue9, First, East Tennessee was not an established State, with its own jurisdictional boundaries as a State, East Tennessee would first be required to seceded from the State of Tennessee.

Second...You still do not understand YOUR own CONstitutional system. It contained two opposing systems, one was the federal system, the other the national system. PLEASE DO NOT REQUIRE ME TO EXPLAIN YOUR OWN CONstitutional SYSTEM TO YOU! PLEASE, PLEASE read the Constitutional debates #39 and 62, so that you may grasp an understanding of the system. The Direct election of the House members is the National portion, the APPOINTMENT of each State governments Representatives, (SENATORS) was the federal portion.

Madison states in #62.....

"It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.

That AUTHORITY to which he referred was the State governments, that were party to, and ratified the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution.

Further Rogue9..... Madison, states....."Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States."
So Rogue9, we can see that under this consolidation into a wholly national system as a result of Lincolns Rebellion to the lawful authority of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutions tenth amendment, YOU now have a wholly National system, (a consolidation of the States, thereby ending the union of States and establishing a single sovereign.
Rogue9, Do the State governments have any participation in legislation within the United States general government? The answer is NO, NO, NO!!! If the State governments have no participation, then how can it claim to be a union of States. The 17th amendment removed the States from the equation and placed their representatives into the hands of the two party duopoly to which the Senators now hold allegiance and the State governments are left without representation, or participation within the general body. The State governments have no interaction with what was once their representatives. The House, the National portion of the System is divided into simple districts without regard to State affiliation, the direct election of the people is the voice of the people of the whole of the U.S. meaning the House of Representatives is the National portion of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution.  Now YOU have ONLY a National system in place.


----------



## James Everett

In reply to rogue9 ....
Please understand that I am new to this format, and hence on the learning curve concerning its use. I do not believe that I have posted a quote without comment, unless it was by accident. Give me time in learning the format, I have only been using it for less that 24 hrs.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JamesEverett, horse crap, son.  Contact paperview to straighten you out.

US law precedes any state's law unless SCOTUS says otherwise.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> JamesEverett, horse crap, son.  Contact paperview to straighten you out.
> 
> US law precedes any state's law unless SCOTUS says otherwise.





JakeStarkey said:


> JamesEverett, horse crap, son.  Contact paperview to straighten you out.
> 
> US law precedes any state's law unless SCOTUS says otherwise.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey,
Tell you what "son" you have this paperview contact me, and I will see what this person has to say. Clearly you have nothing of relevance to add. Sir, PLEASE cite the law that prevents a State from legally seceding from the union. There must first be established a Law U.S. Law concerning secession, yet there is NOT!  Please by all means cite that LAW!!! So as you can see here, I HAVE JUST STRAIGHTENED YOU OUT, NOW PLEASE BY ALL MEANS SEND THIS PAPERVIEW MY WAY SO THAT I MAY STRAIGHTEN HIM/HER OUT.


----------



## JakeStarkey

son, this was decided long ago.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

A State does not have the right or authority to seize take or steal Federal land, Federal property or arms. Nor does it have the right to fire on Federal troops. All those acts are acts of Insurrection. And all of them occurred in the South.


----------



## James Everett

sticker trumpet.jpg,
No "son" a war was conducted long ago, the legal issue has NOT been settled. The Southern Confederate States have existed under the occupation of the U.S. for 150 years. It is time the occupation be ended. The U.S. can then do as it pleases.  As our President Jefferson Davis said…….
*“A question settled by violence, or in disregard of law,
must remain unsettled forever.”      *


----------



## JakeStarkey

The issues have been settled, yell all you want, and that changes nothing.

The CSA leadership, on capture, should have been summarily executed, by hanging only as they were traitors.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

James Everett said:


> sticker trumpet.jpg,
> No "son" a war was conducted long ago, the legal issue has NOT been settled. The Southern Confederate States have existed under the occupation of the U.S. for 150 years. It is time the occupation be ended. The U.S. can then do as it pleases.  As our President Jefferson Davis said…….
> *“A question settled by violence, or in disregard of law,
> must remain unsettled forever.”      *


Actually legally it HAS been settled the US Supreme Court ruled in 1869 that a State or States may not legally leave the Union without approval from Congress.


----------



## James Everett

RetiredGYSGT,
You have stated.....
"A State does not have the right or authority to seize take or steal Federal land, Federal property or arms. Nor does it have the right to fire on Federal troops. All those acts are acts of Insurrection. And all of them occurred in the South."
I assume you are referring to Ft Sumter, here I would again direct to YOUR SCOTUS opinion....
*Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 3 How. 212 212 (1845)*

*Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan*

*44 U.S. (3 How.) 212
"*The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama,* or any of the new States, *were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States
The shores of navigable waters, and the soils under them, were not granted by the Constitution to the United States, but were reserved to the States respectively, (individually) and the new States have the same rights, sovereignty, and jurisdiction over this subject as the original States. *Upon the admission of Alabama into the union, the right of eminent domain, which had been temporarily held by the United States, passed to the State*."
None of the land within the seceded Southern State, neither the shores of navigable waters, NOR the soils under them belonged to the U.S. but the municipal jurisdiction belonged to each State INDIVIDUALLY.
When South Carolina seceded, any temporary jurisdiction on the part of the U.S. within the Soil, waters, or Soil under the waters ended, as South Carolina nullified all previous ties with the U.S. Further, Ft Sumter held NO benefit to the protection of the U.S as it sits off the shore of South Carolina. Again Sir, you must revisit the first cause...There was no law preventing a State from seceding from the union, THEREFORE, NO INSURRECTION OCCURRED other than that of Northern States and Lincoln's rebellion to the Lawful authority of the U.S. CONstitutions tenth amendment.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey,
"Son" the only traitor was Lincoln and his Northern cronies, as they were in violation of the authority of the U.S. CONstitutions tenth amendment. Are you learning yet, or are you to indoctrinated to see the truth?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

James Everett said:


> RetiredGYSGT,
> You have stated.....
> "A State does not have the right or authority to seize take or steal Federal land, Federal property or arms. Nor does it have the right to fire on Federal troops. All those acts are acts of Insurrection. And all of them occurred in the South."
> I assume you are referring to Ft Sumter, here I would again direct to YOUR SCOTUS opinion....
> *Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 3 How. 212 212 (1845)*
> 
> *Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan*
> 
> *44 U.S. (3 How.) 212
> "*The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama,* or any of the new States, *were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States
> The shores of navigable waters, and the soils under them, were not granted by the Constitution to the United States, but were reserved to the States respectively, (individually) and the new States have the same rights, sovereignty, and jurisdiction over this subject as the original States. *Upon the admission of Alabama into the union, the right of eminent domain, which had been temporarily held by the United States, passed to the State*."
> None of the land within the seceded Southern State, neither the shores of navigable waters, NOR the soils under them belonged to the U.S. but the municipal jurisdiction belonged to each State INDIVIDUALLY.
> When South Carolina seceded, any temporary jurisdiction on the part of the U.S. within the Soil, waters, or Soil under the waters ended, as South Carolina nullified all previous ties with the U.S. Further, Ft Sumter held NO benefit to the protection of the U.S as it sits off the shore of South Carolina. Again Sir, you must revisit the first cause...There was no law preventing a State from seceding from the union, THEREFORE, NO INSURRECTION OCCURRED other than that of Northern States and Lincoln's rebellion to the Lawful authority of the U.S. CONstitutions tenth amendment.


Wrong read the Constitution again. Land ceded to the Federal Government by the States is permanently part of the federal Government. Owned and controlled henceforth by the Federal Government. A State can take no action that legally changes that State. Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia and the other States all ceded land to the federal Government after becoming States. No action by that State can change that act. Every  Federal armory, building and fort seized was an act of rebellion. And firing on Federal troops is an act of Insurrection.

The Supreme Court in 1869 ruled that No State had the legal right to leave the Union EXCEPT as by an act of and accepted by Congress. Those States that tried to leave the Union were in fact in rebellion as established by competent legal authority both the Executive, Legislative and Judicial all agree to that point.


----------



## James Everett

RetiredGYSGT,
No "Son" what you are referring to is Texas V White, which was a case involving U.S. Bonds, NOT secession. Setting aside the fact that the SCOTUS opinion was flawed because it sought justification using the Articles of Confederation as a basis for the opinion when the SCOTUS is limited to the U.S. Constitution in rendering its opinions, NOT a Constitution that was no longer in effect, or a foreign governments constitution. Do you know what DICTA means? ....
Dicta
_Opinions of a judge that do not embody the resolution or determination of the specific case before the court. Expressions in a court's opinionthat go beyond the facts before the court and therefore are individual views of the author of the opinion and not binding in subsequent casesas legal precedent.
Hence the case has no legal bearing on Secession. _


----------



## James Everett

Again "son" read YOUR own SCOTUS opinion concerning YOUR Constitutional U.S. Jurisdiction, do you deny the SCOTUS  opinion is valid, or binding?
Again........
*Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 3 How. 212 212 (1845)*

*Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan*

*44 U.S. (3 How.) 212
"*The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama,* or any of the new States, *were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States
The shores of navigable waters, and the soils under them, were not granted by the Constitution to the United States, but were reserved to the States respectively, (individually) and the new States have the same rights, sovereignty, and jurisdiction over this subject as the original States. *Upon the admission of Alabama into the union, the right of eminent domain, which had been temporarily held by the United States, passed to the State*."
None of the land within the seceded Southern State, neither the shores of navigable waters, NOR the soils under them belonged to the U.S. but the municipal jurisdiction belonged to each State INDIVIDUALLY.
When South Carolina seceded, any temporary jurisdiction on the part of the U.S. within the Soil, waters, or Soil under the waters ended, as South Carolina nullified all previous ties with the U.S. Further, Ft Sumter held NO benefit to the protection of the U.S as it sits off the shore of South Carolina. Again Sir, you must revisit the first cause...There was no law preventing a State from seceding from the union, THEREFORE, NO INSURRECTION OCCURRED other than that of Northern States and Lincoln's rebellion to the Lawful authority of the U.S. CONstitutions tenth amendment


----------



## Rogue 9

James Everett said:


> RetiredGYSGT,
> No "Son" what you are referring to is Texas V White, which was a case involving U.S. Bonds, NOT secession. Setting aside the fact that the SCOTUS opinion was flawed because it sought justification using the Articles of Confederation as a basis for the opinion when the SCOTUS is limited to the U.S. Constitution in rendering its opinions, NOT a Constitution that was no longer in effect, or a foreign governments constitution. Do you know what DICTA means? ....
> Dicta
> _Opinions of a judge that do not embody the resolution or determination of the specific case before the court. Expressions in a court's opinionthat go beyond the facts before the court and therefore are individual views of the author of the opinion and not binding in subsequent casesas legal precedent.
> Hence the case has no legal bearing on Secession. _


Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan was a case involving building a canal, not secession.  See how it works both ways?  The operative legal argument in Texas v. White was that the state of Texas' laws did not apply to Mr. White and his associates because they argued that its state government was illegitimate after the secession and could not sue them for recovery of the bonds. The entire focus of the decision, therefore, was whether or not Texas' secession was valid.


----------



## James Everett

RetiredGYSGT,
Sir, Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan was a case concerning jurisdiction, Texas V White was Concerning bonds, NOT secession. Also Texas v White is invalid even concerning those bonds, because YOUR SCOTUS opinion was based in the perpetuity of the union under the Articles of Confederation, Were the States at the time of the Texas v White opinion still operating under the Articles? NO. Does the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution mention perpetual anywhere within? NO. Let us read what YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution states in Article III Sect.2......
 "The Judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and eqquity, arising under THIS constitution."   The opinion involved the perpetuity under the old Constitution, NOT the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution. Now let us view International law since we are using law that does not concern the treaty called the "U.S. Constitution".......
"Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties. As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states
When a state withdraws from a multi-lateral treaty, that treaty will still otherwise remain in force among the other parties, unless, of course, otherwise should or could be interpreted as agreed upon between the remaining states parties to the treaty." Now, as During the U.S. CONstitutional debates, Gunning Bedford arose and stated....“That at present all of the States are equally sovereign and independent has been asserted from every quarter of this house, Our deliberations here are a confirmation of the position." In other words, ALL WERE IN AGREEMENT THAT THE STATES WERE SOVEREIGNS, hence the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution was a TREATY. Therefore SGT if we are going beyond what is stated within YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, then we have international law stating that secession, (withdrawal from Treaty is legal.
SGT, "See how it works both ways?" 
The fact is there is NO Article, NO Amendment, or Law against a State seceding from the union, therefore secession is LEGAL.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Of course it is not.  The law trumps, not your opinion.  Trot along.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey, Cite the law.... I am still waiting for you or anyone else to cite that law. 
Indeed the law trumps my opinion as well as yours, yet you have yet to cite the law.


----------



## James Everett

This should have been directed at Rogue9. So here it is again.....
Sir, Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan was a case concerning jurisdiction, Texas V White was Concerning bonds, NOT secession. Also Texas v White is invalid even concerning those bonds, because YOUR SCOTUS opinion was based in the perpetuity of the union under the Articles of Confederation, Were the States at the time of the Texas v White opinion still operating under the Articles? NO. Does the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution mention perpetual anywhere within? NO. Let us read what YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution states in Article III Sect.2......
"The Judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and eqquity, arising under THIS constitution." The opinion involved the perpetuity under the old Constitution, NOT the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution. Now let us view International law since we are using law that does not concern the treaty called the "U.S. Constitution".......
"Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties. As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states
When a state withdraws from a multi-lateral treaty, that treaty will still otherwise remain in force among the other parties, unless, of course, otherwise should or could be interpreted as agreed upon between the remaining states parties to the treaty." Now, as During the U.S. CONstitutional debates, Gunning Bedford arose and stated....“That at present all of the States are equally sovereign and independent has been asserted from every quarter of this house, Our deliberations here are a confirmation of the position." In other words, ALL WERE IN AGREEMENT THAT THE STATES WERE SOVEREIGNS, hence the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution was a TREATY. Therefore SGT if we are going beyond what is stated within YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, then we have international law stating that secession, (withdrawal from Treaty is legal.
SGT, "See how it works both ways?" 
The fact is there is NO Article, NO Amendment, or Law against a State seceding from the union, therefore secession is LEGAL.


----------



## Rogue 9

The Constitution is a compact between the states that forms a government over them all.  It is not a mere treaty; it methodically and intentionally lays out a government of a nation, and was adopted by convention of the people, not statute of the legislatures.  All the states are bound by it.  James Madison put the argument quite well, I think. 
James Madison to Nicholas Trist, December 23, 1832


> Montpellier, Decr 23, 1832.
> 
> Dr. Sir
> 
> I have received yours of the 19th, inclosing some of the South Carolina papers. *There are in one of them some interesting views of the doctrine of secession; one that had occurred to me, and which for the first time I have seen in print; namely that if one State can at will withdraw from the others, the others can at will withdraw from her, and turn her, nolentem, volentem, out of the union. Until of late, there is not a State that would have abhorred such a doctrine more than South Carolina, or more dreaded an application of it to herself.* The same may be said of the doctrine of nullification, which she now preaches as the only faith by which the Union can be saved.
> 
> I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater right to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of — 98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. *The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created.* In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional. It was in fact required by the course of reasoning employed on the occasion. The Kentucky resolutions being less guarded have been more easily perverted. The pretext for the liberty taken with those of Virginia is the word respective, prefixed to the "rights" &c to be secured within the States. Could the abuse of the expression have been foreseen or suspected, the form of it would doubtless have been varied. But what can be more consistent with common sense, than that all having the same rights &c. should unite in contending for the security of them to each.
> 
> It is remarkable how closely the nullifiers who make the name of Mr Jefferson the pedestal for their colossal heresy, shut their eyes and lips, whenever his authority is ever so clearly and emphatically against them. You have noticed what he says in his letters to Monroe & Carrington Pages 43 & 203, vol 2, with respect to the powers of the old Congress to coerce delinquent States, and his reasons for preferring for the purpose a naval to a military force, and moreover that it was not necessary to find a right to coerce in the Federal Articles, that being inherent in the nature of a compact. *It is high time that the claim to secede at will should be put down by the public opinion, and I shall be glad to see the task commenced by one who understands the subject.*
> 
> I know nothing of what is passing at Richmond, more than what is seen in the newspapers. You were right in your foresight of the effect of the passages in the late Proclamation. They have proved a leaven for much fermentation there, and created an alarm against the danger of consolidation, balancing that of disunion. I wish with you the Legislature may not seriously injure itself by assuming the high character of mediator. They will certainly do so if they forget that their real influence will be in the inverse ratio of a boastful interposition of it.
> 
> If you can fix, and will name the day of your arrival at Orange Court House, we will have a horse there for you, and if you have more baggage than can be otherwise brought than on wheels, we will send such a vehicle for it. Such is the state of the roads produced by the wagons hurrying flour to market, that it may be impossible to send our carriage which would answer both purposes.


James Madison was just as much a party to the Constitutional Convention as Gunning Bedford, and George Washington chaired the convention.  Thomas Jefferson stated repeatedly that breaking up the Union would be a calamity, and further Gunning Bedford didn't actually say anything relating to secession from the Constitutional government post-ratification.  His opinion is no more or less valid than those of anyone else at that convention.


----------



## James Everett

Rogue9....
The Constitution is in fact a treaty between Sovereign States.
A Treaty is....
._A compact made between two or more independent nations with a view to the public_Welfare.
A formal agreement between two or more States containing terms of peace, trade, etc
A Compact is.....
An agreement or covenant.
I am quite aware of Madison's letters, as well as Washington's circular etc....
However, these are NOT law, they are NOT the Constitution, these men were NOT the States that ratified the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution. At the time they were bound by the Articles of Confederation.....
Article XIII...."nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State"
They could NOT have ratified the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution without the CONFIRMATION OF THE LEGISLATURES OF EVERY STATE.
The 1787/1789 .U.S CONstitution was indeed ratified by a convention in each State,
Delaware...
The first state to ratify was Delaware. The Delaware legislature began its new session in October 1787 and by early November had called for elections for the state ratifying convention to be held on November 9 and 10. Ten members were to be elected from each of the three counties for a total of 30 delegates, the same number of representatives in the lower house of the Delaware legislature. And what we have called the Madison forces were out there in the electoral districts making sure that the pro-Constitutionalists were selected as delegates.
*Pennsylvania*
*All eight delegates at that States Convention resided in Philadelphia.
New Jersey
There were 13 counties in New Jersey and each chose three delegates to attend the ratifying convention.

So as we see here Rogue9,  this was not by popular vote of the people, but by State convention with elected delegates within each State called for by each States legislature. In this process, it was indeed a ratification by the States and not by the people, otherwise the 1787/1789 U.S. Constitution established a de facto government in violation of the Articles Of Confederation. 
As I have stated before, opinions are a dime a dozen, and mine, Yours and anyone elses are as valid as Madison's or Washington's, when it comes to law however, opinions take a back seat to the enumeration in the law. Madison, nor Washington ratified the TREATY. 
However, non of this is relevant to the fact that YOU must cite the law, article within the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, or amendment to it that makes secession an unlawful, or illegal act. *


----------



## James Everett

Rogue9,
_I forgot to address this........"Gunning Bedford didn't actually say anything relating to secession from the Constitutional government post-ratification. His opinion is no more or less valid than those of anyone else at that convention."_

As I stated....
Gunning Bedford stated that it had been asserted that from every quarter of the house that the States at present were equally sovereign and Independent.
In other words it was NOT simply his opinion, but rather an opinion asserted from every quarter of that house.
Again....Cite that law.....


----------



## Rogue 9

And Mr. Bedford was apparently mistaken, since other delegates at the convention including the chair disagreed.  Or he didn't mean what you seem to think he did, which seems more probable since he was ardently in favor of adopting the Constitution, referred to it as the foundation of the country, and insisted on defining a common law of the United States.  

Treaties _do not do what the Constitution does._ The Constitution is the foundational document of a nation, to which the states sublimated themselves - and with reason, for it was together that they achieved their independence, together that they were recognized as a nation on the world stage by the Treaty of Paris, and only together that they could have any real influence in the world. The Constitution, in so many words, forms a *government*, not a treaty organization. NATO is a treaty organization; the difference between the two is quite stark. A government cannot function without the power to enforce its laws - and if those subject to its laws can avoid them by simply breaking off the territory they stand on at whim and removing themselves from its jurisdiction, then the government has no actual power to enforce the laws. 

It was the treaties and money of the United States that acquired the land that Alabama sits on, that made the Louisiana purchase, and it was the armies of the United States that powered the western expansion.  Southern politicians, in fact, were eager to use more American blood and treasure to acquire yet more territory in the Caribbean and Central America in which to erect more slave states so as to recapture a majority in the Senate and thereby protect their repugnant institution; it can hardly be said that they were opposed to benefiting from this arrangement.  To take the weal of the common effort and simply walk away with it without the consent of the co-states can hardly be reasonably considered within the scope of fair dealings in a compact.


----------



## James Everett

Mr. Bedford was there, you were not, and simply because you claim some to disagree that the States at that time were NOT equally sovereign and Independent without citing one shred of evidence, does not make it so. Mr. Bedford made his observation, just as Madison has made his own. 
The 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution is a treaty that established a central body with limited functions, to operate within a limited sphere of delegated authority, pure and simple. Again, Allow me to post the definition of TREATY for you....
A Treaty is....
*.A compact made between two or more independent nations with a view to the publicWelfare.
A formal agreement between two or more States containing terms of peace, trade, etc.*
Now your gratuitous assertion concerning .....
_" Southern politicians, in fact, were eager to use more American blood and treasure to acquire yet more territory in the Caribbean and Central America in which to erect more slave states so as to recapture a majority in the Senate and thereby protect their repugnant institution; it can hardly be said that they were opposed to benefiting from this arrangement."_
*If you are simply attempting to gain a moral advantage in the discussion, you will be defeated there as well as you have concerning the legality of secession.*_ 
*The first certain reference to African slavery is in connection with the bloody Pequot War in 1637. The Pequot Indians of central Connecticut, pressed hard by encroaching European settlements, struck back and attacked the town of Wetherfield. A few months later, Massachusetts and Connecticut militias joined forces and raided the Pequot village near Mystic, Connecticut. Of the few Indians who escaped slaughter, the women and children were enslaved in New England, and Roger Williams of Rhode Island wrote to Winthrop congratulating him on God's having placed in his hands "another drove of Adams' degenerate seed." But most of the men and boys, deemed too dangerous to keep in the colony, were transported to the West Indies aboard the shipDesire, to be exchanged for African slaves. The Desire arrived back in Massachusetts in 1638, after exchanging its cargo, according to Winthrop, loaded with "Salt, cotton, tobacco and Negroes."*_
You may also wish to gain a little knowledge on the subject of John Casor, and Anthony Johnson which was the case that legalized chattel slavery in the colonies. 
You will gain NO MORAL ADVANTAGE, therefore it best for YOU to stop here before I embarrass you.
*AGAIN.....Please cite the law, Article within the 1787/1789 U.S. Constitution, or amendment to it that makes secession an unlawful or illegal act. Without it you lose here as well.* *These are the facts*.
_
_


----------



## Rogue 9

I already have.  Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 clearly states that *nothing in the Constitution shall be construed to prejudice the claims of the United States.*  Your failure to accept that doesn't make it not so.  

And the point isn't to gain moral advantage - though it would be easy to do so, since the Confederacy, after all, was based "upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."  The point is that the independence of the United States, and its acquisition of further territory, was brought about by the common effort of the United States, and to simply take the money and run, as it were, is not a just or equitable basis for a compact.


----------



## SmedlyButler

Rogue 9 said:


> Despite the fact that it has been over for 149 years, the American Civil War's causes, the motives behind the secession of the Deep South, and even the legality of secession itself are still matters of hot debate in historical circles. There has been so much historical revisionism on the subject (on both sides, no less), that it has become difficult to get a clear account of the reasons behind it, although the facts of the actual events are widely available.
> 
> In this thread, I'm going to lay out the facts as I see them. I freely admit to being a Unionist and ardent anti-Confederate, but feel that these are positions borne out by the objective facts of the matter rather than damaging biases. Make of that what you will.
> 
> First, the motives behind secession.
> 
> Too often, you will see apologists for the Confederacy claiming that the South did what it did because they saw that Abraham Lincoln was a despotic tyrant in the making, that he would subjugate the rights of the people and crush the states beneath the boot of the federal government. "Lincoln the Tyrant" is a popular trope, spurred onward by the usual grain of truth that gives such things their lasting appeal: Abraham Lincoln did, as President, suspend _habeas corpus_, raise an army without the consent of Congress, and, yes, ordered the forfeit of property on the part of Confederates (i.e. freed the slaves, though it's not often put like that in a criticism for obvious reasons). You see this repeated over and over in neo-Confederate and anarchocapitalist circles; for instance, a look through the titles of Thomas DiLorenzo's essays shows an obsession with writing extensive character attacks on President Lincoln, and while probably the most prolific, he's not the only one.
> 
> There are obvious problems with this approach, however.  The most glaring is that none of the things that Lincoln did that earn so much scorn could have been done outside the context of the Civil War.  In other words, far from predicting Lincoln's behavior and seceding to avoid it, the southern states were the catalyst for his behavior!  After all, had there been no insurrection, there would have been no need to arrest insurrectionists, raise an army to suppress the insurrection, and emancipate the slaves in Confederate-held territory as a war measure.  (More on the scope of the Emancipation Proclamation later.)
> 
> The other problem, of course, is that there is no shortage of primary source documents from the Confederate governments themselves stating exactly why they seceded.  I see no reason to disbelieve them, so without further ado, the various Declarations of the Causes of Secession from several Confederate states.  I have excerpted them for brevity's sake, but the complete text of each may be found at the links provided.
> 
> Texas: Declaration of the Causes of Secession
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union.
> 
> The government of the United States, by certain joint resolutions, bearing date the 1st day of March, in the year A.D. 1845, proposed to the Republic of Texas, then a free, sovereign and independent nation, the annexation of the latter to the former, as one of the co-equal states thereof,
> 
> The people of Texas, by deputies in convention assembled, on the fourth day of July of the same year, assented to and accepted said proposals and formed a constitution for the proposed State, upon which on the 29th day of December in the same year, said State was formally admitted into the Confederated Union.
> 
> Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association.
> 
> ...
> 
> When we advert to the course of individual non-slave-holding States, and that a majority of their citizens, our grievances assume far greater magnitude.
> 
> The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article *[the fugitive slave clause*] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation...
> 
> In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.
> 
> For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States.
> 
> By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress,
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's kind of what the majority does in a republic. Moving on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments.
> 
> They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a 'higher law' than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights.
> 
> They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.
> 
> They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offenses, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved.
> 
> ...
> 
> And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States.
> 
> In view of these and many other facts, it is meet that our own views should be distinctly proclaimed.
> 
> We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.
> 
> That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.
> 
> By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> South Carolina also chimes in, with this gem: South Carolina: Declaration of the Causes of Secession
> 
> 
> 
> Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union
> 
> The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.
> 
> And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.
> 
> ...
> 
> The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
> 
> *This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made.* The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.
> 
> The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.
> 
> The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.
> 
> The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
> 
> These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.
> 
> We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
> 
> ...
> 
> On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
> 
> ...
> 
> We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And most egregiously, Mississippi: Mississippi: Declaration of the Causes of Secession
> 
> 
> 
> A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
> 
> In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
> 
> Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
> 
> That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.
> 
> The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.
> 
> The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.
> 
> The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.
> 
> It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.
> 
> It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.
> 
> It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.
> 
> It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.
> 
> It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.
> 
> It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.
> 
> It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.
> 
> ...
> 
> Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.
> 
> Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even for those seceding states that did not publish official Declarations of Causes, we may learn much from their secession convention delegates.  For instance, this address of George Williamson, a Commissioner for the state of Louisiana, to the Texas secession convention, March 9, 1861.  Illustrates slavery as a secession aim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To the Hon. O.M. Roberts, President of the Convention of the People of Texas.
> 
> Mr. President and Gentlemen of the people of Texas.
> 
> I have the honor to address you as the commissioner of the people of Louisiana, accredited to your honorable body.
> 
> ...
> 
> The people of Louisiana were unwilling to endanger their liberties and property by submission to the despotism of a single tyrant, or the canting tyranny of pharisaical majorities. Insulted by the denial of her constitutional equality by the non-slaveholding States, outraged by their contemptuous rejection of proffered compromises, and convinced that she was illustrating the capacity of her people for self-government by withdrawing from a union that had failed, without fault of hers, to accomplish its purposes, she declared herself a free and independent State on the 26th day of January last. History affords no example of a people who changed their government for more just or substantial reasons. Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery, and of the free institutions of the founders of the Federal Union, bequeathed to their posterity. As her neighbor and sister State, she desires the hearty co-operation of Texas in the formation of a Southern Confederacy. She congratulates herself on the recent disposition evinced by your body to meet this wish, by the election of delegates to the Montgomery convention. Louisiana and Texas have the same language, laws and institutions. Between the citizens of each exists the most cordial social and commercial intercourse. The Red river and the Sabine form common highways for the transportation of their produce to the markets of the world. Texas affords to the commerce of Louisiana a large portion of her products, and in exchange the banks of New Orleans furnish Texas with her only paper circulating medium. Louisiana supplies to Texas a market for her surplus wheat, grain and stock; both States have large areas of fertile, uncultivated lands, peculiarly adapted to slave labor; and *they are both so deeply interested in African slavery that it may be said to be absolutely necessary to their existence, and is the keystone to the arch of their prosperity.* ...
> 
> The people of Louisiana would consider it a most fatal blow to African slavery, if Texas either did not secede or having seceded should not join her destinies to theirs in a Southern Confederacy. If she remains in the union the abolitionists would continue their work of incendiarism and murder. Emigrant aid societies would arm with Sharp's rifles predatory bands to infest her northern borders. The Federal Government would mock at her calamity in accepting the recent bribes in the army bill and Pacific railroad bill, and with abolition treachery would leave her unprotected frontier to the murderous inroads of hostile savages. Experience justifies these expectations. A professedly friendly federal administration gave Texas no substantial protection against the Indians or abolitionists, and what must she look for from an administration avowedly inimical and supported by no vote within her borders. Promises won from the timid and faithless are poor hostages of good faith. As a separate republic, Louisiana remembers too well the whisperings of European diplomacy for the abolition of slavery in the times of annexation not to be apprehensive of bolder demonstrations from the same quarter and the North in this country. The people of the slaveholding States are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery. The isolation of any one of them from the others would make her a theatre for abolition emissaries from the North and from Europe. Her existence would be one of constant peril to herself and of imminent danger to other neighboring slave-holding communities. A decent respect for the opinions and interests of the Gulf States seems to indicate that Texas should co-operate with them. I am authorized to say to your honorable body that Louisiana does not expect any beneficial result from the peace conference now assembled at Washington. She is unwilling that her action should depend on the border States. Her interests are identical with Texas and the seceding States. With them she will at present co-operate, hoping and believing in his own good time God will awaken the people of the border States to the vanity of asking for, or depending upon, guarantees or compromises wrung from a people whose consciences are too sublimated to be bound by that sacred compact, the constitution of the late United States. That constitution the Southern States have never violated, and taking it as the basis of our new government we hope to form a slave-holding confederacy that will secure to us and our remotest posterity the great blessings its authors designed in the Federal Union. With the social balance wheel of slavery to regulate its machinery, we may fondly indulge the hope that our Southern government will be perpetual.
> 
> Geo. Williamson
> Commissioner of the State of Louisiana
> City of Austin Feby 11th 1861.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To hear from yet another Deep South state, a speech of E.S. Dargan to the Secession Convention of Alabama, January 11, 1861.
> 
> 
> 
> I wish, Mr. President, to express the feelings with which I vote for the secession of Alabama from the Government of the United States; and to state, in a few words, the reasons that impel me to this act.
> 
> I feel impelled, Mr. President, to vote for this Ordinance by an overruling necessity. Years ago I was convinced that the Southern States would be compelled either to separate from the North, by dissolving the Federal Government, or they would be compelled to abolish the institution of African Slavery. This, in my judgment, was the only alternative; and I foresaw that the South would be compelled, at some day, to make her selection. The day is now come, and Alabama must make her selection, either to secede from the Union, and assume the position of a sovereign, independent State, or she must submit to a system of policy on the part of the Federal Government that, in a short time, will compel her to abolish African Slavery.
> 
> Mr. President, if pecuniary loss alone were involved in the abolition of slavery, I should hesitate long before I would give the vote I now intend to give. If the destruction of slavery entailed on us poverty alone, I could bear it, for I have seen poverty and felt its sting. But poverty, Mr. President, would be one of the least of the evils that would befall us from the abolition of African slavery. There are now in the slaveholding States over four millions of slaves; dissolve the relation of master and slave, and what, I ask, would become of that race? To remove them from amongst us is impossible. History gives us no account of the exodus of such a number of persons. We neither have a place to which to remove them, nor the means of such removal. They therefore must remain with us; and if the relation of master and slave be dissolved, and our slaves turned loose amongst us without restraint, they would either be destroyed by our own hands - the hands to which they look, and look with confidence, for protection - or we ourselves would become demoralized and degraded. *The former result would take place, and we ourselves would become the executioners of our own slaves.* To this extent would the policy of our Northern enemies drive us; and thus would we not only be reduced to poverty, but what is still worse, we should be driven to crime, to the commission of sin; and we must, therefore, this day elect between the Government formed by our fathers (the whole spirit of which has been perverted), and POVERTY AND CRIME! This being the alternative, I cannot hesitate for a moment what my duty is. I must separate from the Government of my fathers, the one under which I have lived, and under which I wished to die. But I must do my duty to my country and my fellow beings; and humanity, in my judgment, demands that Alabama should separate herself from the Government of the United States.
> 
> If I am wrong in this responsible act, I hope my God may forgive me; for I am not actuated, as I think, from any motive save that of justice and philanthropy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Abolition would *force them to commit murder, nay, genocide* in his view, because that would be better than being "degraded" by having free blacks in their midst.
> 
> And to put the final nail in the coffin, we go to the Vice President of the Confederate States, speaking of the new Confederate Constitution. Alexander H. Stephens: Cornerstone Address
> 
> 
> 
> March 21, 1861
> We are in the midst of one of the greatest epochs in our history. The last ninety days will mark one of the most memorable eras in the history of modern civilization.
> 
> ...
> 
> But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other-though last, not least: the new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions-African slavery as it exists among us-the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. *This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.* Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the Constitution, was the prevailing idea at the time. The Constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly used against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it-when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."
> 
> Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; *its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.* This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, *based upon* this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It is so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North who still cling to these errors with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind; from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is, forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics: their conclusions are right if their premises are. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights, with the white man.... I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the Northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery; that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle-a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of man. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds we should succeed, and that he and his associates in their crusade against our institutions would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as well as in physics and mechanics, I admitted, but told him it was he and those acting with him who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.
> 
> In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.
> 
> As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are, and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo-it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not therefore look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first Government ever instituted upon principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many Governments have been founded upon the principles of certain classes; but the classes thus enslaved, were of the same race, and in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws. The negro by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, [note: A reference to Genesis, 9:20-27, which was used as a justification for slavery] is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite-then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is the best, not only for the superior but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances or to question them. For His own purposes He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made "one star to differ from another in glory."
> 
> The great objects of humanity are best attained, when conformed to his laws and degrees, in the formation of Governments as well as in all things else. Our Confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders "is become the chief stone of the corner" in our new edifice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And just as a reminder of what change in the Confederate Constitution he referred to:
> 
> 
> 
> Constitution of the Confederate States said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Parts in red are relevant. The section of the Texas Declaration in blue admits that Texas surrendered her separate national character.
> 
> I should think that this lays to rest claims that the southern states were benevolently attempting to avoid general oppression; they rather acted in order to keep a large segment of their own populations oppressed.
> 
> Ah, but regardless of their reasons, moral or immoral, it was the right of the states to end the compact of the Constitution, cries out the Libertarian circle!  It was never the intention of the Founders to forever bind the states against their wills, and they intentionally left the door open to secession by not explicitly banning it in the Constitution!  Lincoln's actions, therefore, forever and improperly removed a natural right of the states, a safeguard against future tyranny.
> 
> Well, no.  Let's look at the intentions of the Founders.  Secession did indeed occur to them; after all, the Hartford Convention at which a minority of New England delegates advocated secession had happened during their lifetimes and many were still alive during the Nullification Crisis of the 1830s.  There are therefore many writings from several Founding Fathers to draw from.  At random, let's start with James Madison.  From this letter to William Rives.
> 
> 
> 
> The milliners it appears, endeavor to shelter themselves under a distinction between a delegation and a surrender of powers. But if the powers be attributes of sovereignty & nationality & the grant of them be perpetual, *as is necessarily implied*, where not otherwise expressed, *sovereignty & nationality according to the extent of the grant are effectually transferred by it*, and a dispute about the name, is but a battle of words. The practical result is not indeed left to argument or inference. *The words of the Constitution are explicit that the Constitution & laws of the U. S. shall be supreme over the Constitution & laws of the several States, supreme in their exposition and execution as well as in their authority. Without a supremacy in those respects it would be like a scabbard in the hand of a soldier without a sword in it. The imagination itself is startled at the idea of twenty four independent expounders of a rule that cannot exist, but in a meaning and operation, the same for all.*
> 
> The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not only the question of nullification, but the more formidable one of secession. It is asked whether a State by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the Union, may not of right withdraw from it at will. As this is a simple question whether a State, more than an individual, has a right to violate its engagements, it would seem that it might be safely left to answer itself. But the countenance given to the claim shows that it cannot be so lightly dismissed. The natural feelings which laudably attach the people composing a State, to its authority and importance, are at present too much excited by the unnatural feelings, with which they have been inspired agst their brethren of other States, not to expose them, to the danger of being misled into *erroneous views of the nature of the Union* and the interest they have in it. One thing at least seems to be too clear to be questioned, that whilst a State remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution & laws of the Union. In the event of an actual secession without the Consent of the Co States, the course to be pursued by these involves questions painful in the discussion of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Madison actually considered the idea of unilateral secession so preposterous that until it actually came up when South Carolina first threatened it he felt there was no need to even mention it, and was astonished that he should have to.  He also references the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution as proof positive that the states had no such ability, something that modern neo-Confederates tend to deny.  Given that he wrote the thing, I should think I trust Madison's interpretation of it. Also note that he asserts that sovereignty and nationality lay with the United States, not the individual states.
> 
> And now for the thoughts of the man commonly referred to as the father of our country, George Washington, chairman of the Constitutional Convention and first President.  This is from his Circular to the States.
> 
> 
> 
> There are four things, which I humbly conceive, are essential to the well being, I may even venture to say, to the existence of the United States as an Independent Power:
> 
> 1st. An *indissoluble Union of the States* under one Federal Head.
> 
> 2dly. A Sacred regard to Public Justice.
> 
> 3dly. The adoption of a proper Peace Establishment, and
> 
> 4thly. The prevalence of that pacific and friendly Disposition, among the People of the United States, which will induce them to forget their local prejudices and policies, to make those mutual concessions which are requisite to the general prosperity, and in some instances, to sacrifice their individual advantages to the interest of the Community.
> 
> ...
> 
> Under the first head, altho' it may not be necessary or proper for me in this place to enter into a particular disquisition of the principles of the Union, and to take up the great question which has been frequently agitated, whether it be expedient and requisite for the States to delegate a larger proportion of Power to Congress, or not, Yet it will be a part of my duty, and that of every true Patriot, to assert without reserve, and to insist upon the following positions, That unless the States will suffer Congress to exercise those prerogatives, they are undoubtedly invested with by the Constitution, every thing must very rapidly tend to Anarchy and confusion, That it is indispensable to the happiness of the individual States, that there should be lodged somewhere, a Supreme Power to regulate and govern the general concerns of the Confederated Republic, without which the Union cannot be of long duration. That there must be a faithful and pointed compliance on the part of every State, with the late proposals and demands of Congress, or the most fatal consequences will ensue, *That whatever measures have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or contribute to violate or lessen the Sovereign Authority, ought to be considered as hostile to the Liberty and Independency of America, and the Authors of them treated accordingly*, and lastly, that unless we can be enabled by the concurrence of the States, to participate of the fruits of the Revolution, and enjoy the essential benefits of Civil Society, under a form of Government so free and uncorrupted, so happily guarded against the danger of oppression, as has been devised and adopted by the Articles of Confederation, it will be a subject of regret, that so much blood and treasure have been lavished for no purpose, that so many sufferings have been encountered without a compensation, and that so many sacrifices have been made in vain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ouch.  That one's got to sting, especially since many neo-Confederates actually hold Washington as a hero.  There was in fact a portrait of him dominating the front wall of the hall in Montgomery where the Confederate Constitution was drawn up.
> 
> But these are the opinions of men.  What does that Supreme Law of the Land say, actually?  Often the Tenth Amendment is cited as a grant of the power to break up the Union.  That Amendment:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States Constitution said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But this explicitly applies to powers not delegated to the United States.  So let's see what is.
> 
> 
> 
> United States Constitution said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, *suppress Insurrections* and repel Invasions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Insurrection and rebellion are obviously illegal; otherwise there would be no provision for suppressing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States Constitution said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, if rebellion is legal, why the injunction against it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States Constitution said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, *keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War*, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, if you need the consent of Congress to raise an army, then it would seem that just leaving would be out; after all, if you can just leave, why bother having such a restriction?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States Constitution said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treason against the United States, shall consist only in *levying War against them*, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaks for itself, I think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States Constitution said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory* or other Property belonging to the United States; and *nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States*, or of any particular State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This one's the kicker.  When taken in the context of the Supremacy Clause, we see that the states cannot violate the territorial sovereignty of the United States.  Secession is such a violation.  Here is that Clause, which is the one Madison referred to in his letter to Senator Rives:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States Constitution said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, *shall be the supreme Law of the Land*; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, *any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where is the right to secede?  I'm certainly not seeing it.  Incidentally, if that was such a big deal to the Confederate States, you would think they would have seen fit to include it in their own constitution.  They did not.  In fact, the only change they made which affects the ability of states to leave their union is this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confederate Constitution said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a *permanent federal government*, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So much for the right of secession.
> 
> Now, none of this is to say that the North was all sweetness and light.  It was not. While slavery was the proximate cause of the initial secessions, and therefore the ultimate cause of the war, freeing the slaves was not the North's motive in prosecuting the war. Rather, the North was motivated primarily to preserve the Union; while Lincoln was personally an abolitionist, he did not believe it within his power as President to free the slaves. (Ironic, since he did take several powers normally reserved for Congress - namely, suspension of _habeus corpus_ and calling out the militia to suppress insurrection - upon himself in the interim between his inauguration and Congress coming to session.)
> 
> The Emancipation Proclamation was indeed a great step, but it was first and foremost a war measure.  Slave states which did not secede from the Union were permitted to keep their slaves until the passage of the 13th Amendment.  In fact, prior to the Proclamation, Lincoln rescinded orders by Generals John Frémont and David Hunter freeing the slaves in areas of the Confederacy they had captured; he dismissed Frémont when the general refused the President's orders to reverse his decision.
> 
> It was political reality that making the war about slavery would likely have cost Lincoln the war (Ulysses S. Grant said he would resign if he thought the war's objective was to free the slaves, and the border states would likely have simply seceded themselves), but that doesn't change the fact that the Union's prosecution of the war was not to free the slaves; it just makes it more excusable.
> 
> However, what is not excusable is the South's behavior prior to and during the Civil War. War would not have happened without secession. The initial secessions were without doubt motivated by a desire to maintain and expand chattel slavery (secessions after Lincoln took office were motivated by an unwillingness to contribute troops to fight the South, but again, without slavery none of it would have happened), and that is what matters to the causes of the war.
Click to expand...


Good post, thanks. It never hurts to remind people of the facts unencumbered with "lost cause" romanticism and "states rights" apologia.


----------



## James Everett

Rogue 9 said:


> I already have.  Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 clearly states that *nothing in the Constitution shall be construed to prejudice the claims of the United States.*  Your failure to accept that doesn't make it not so.
> 
> And the point isn't to gain moral advantage - though it would be easy to do so, since the Confederacy, after all, was based "upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."  The point is that the independence of the United States, and its acquisition of further territory, was brought about by the common effort of the United States, and to simply take the money and run, as it were, is not a just or equitable basis for a compact.


Rogue9, You posted....
"Article IV, Section 3, clause 2 as your defence, ....
I am astonished at how many such as you, have no understanding of their own U.S. CONstitution. Article IV, section 3, clause 2, is in reference to territories belonging to the U.S. States DO NOT BELONG TO THE U.S. they are members of the treaty called the U.S. CONstitution. Again, this issue of municiple jurisdiction was discussed and an opinion rendered concerning the municiple jurisdiction of the land and waters within a State in .....
*Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 3 How. 212 212 (1845)*

*Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan*

*44 U.S. (3 How.) 212
"*The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama,*or any of the new States, *were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States
The shores of navigable waters, and the soils under them, were not granted by the Constitution to the United States, but were reserved to the States respectively, (individually) and the new States have the same rights, sovereignty, and jurisdiction over this subject as the original States. *Upon the admission of Alabama into the union, the right of eminent domain, which had been temporarily held by the United States, passed to the State*."
I do not understand your inability to grasp this point.
*The U.S. Municipal jurisdiction and right of soil ends once the territory forms itself into a State.
This should not be so difficult for you to grasp!
Well , I warned you!!  
 Lets examine what YOUR government was doing at the time of this great war to "end slavery"*
*Nov. 29, 1864, The U.S. Sand Creek massacre of the peaceful Cheyenne village of Black Kettle, who had been told that if he placed that wonderful U.S. Flag above his lodge,his people would not be molested by the U.S. yet as the U.S. Solders stormed into the village, one of the Cheyenne men grabbed the flag and was waiving it back and forth so that the U.S. Soldiers would see that they were friends, he was shot dead.....*
*“My shame is as big as the earth. I once thought that I was the only man that persevered to be the friend of the white man, but it is hard for me to believe the white man any more."*
The U.S. Soldiers slaughtered the women and children as the women were on their knees begging for their lives, The pregnant women's wombs were carved open, their unborn children removed and scalped, the nursing infants were tossed into the air, and bayoneted as their little bodies fell back toward the bloodStained ground, women's private parts were carved from their bodies as trophies for YOUR U.S. Soldiers. Crying children were used as target practice with bragging rights for your soldiers as they took turns aiming and shooting them as they ran dodging the bullets from side to side. Your U.S. 
soldiers later claimed that they did these things, *"BECAUSE NITS MAKE LICE!!!!"
The we have your U.S. governments CDC tuskegee syphilis experiments performed on our Southern Black brothers in Alabama from 1932 until 1972, which even your own U.S. President Bill Clinton remarked as RACIST.
And we have tour U.S. Governments racist Eugenics program that was upheld as CONstitutional by your SCOTUS, the very program which Nazi Germany used as the model for its Master Race program. 
Please forgive me if your attempts to gain some moral advantage falls on its face. 
*


----------



## Rogue 9

James Everett said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already have.  Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 clearly states that *nothing in the Constitution shall be construed to prejudice the claims of the United States.*  Your failure to accept that doesn't make it not so.
> 
> And the point isn't to gain moral advantage - though it would be easy to do so, since the Confederacy, after all, was based "upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."  The point is that the independence of the United States, and its acquisition of further territory, was brought about by the common effort of the United States, and to simply take the money and run, as it were, is not a just or equitable basis for a compact.
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue9, You posted....
> "Article IV, Section 3, clause 2 as your defence, ....
> I am astonished at how many such as you, have no understanding of their own U.S. CONstitution. Article IV, section 3, clause 2, is in reference to territories belonging to the U.S. States DO NOT BELONG TO THE U.S. they are members of the treaty called the U.S. CONstitution. Again, this issue of municiple jurisdiction was discussed and an opinion rendered concerning the municiple jurisdiction of the land and waters within a State in .....
> *Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 3 How. 212 212 (1845)*
> 
> *Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan*
> 
> *44 U.S. (3 How.) 212
> "*The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama,*or any of the new States, *were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States
> The shores of navigable waters, and the soils under them, were not granted by the Constitution to the United States, but were reserved to the States respectively, (individually) and the new States have the same rights, sovereignty, and jurisdiction over this subject as the original States. *Upon the admission of Alabama into the union, the right of eminent domain, which had been temporarily held by the United States, passed to the State*."
> I do not understand your inability to grasp this point.
> *The U.S. Municipal jurisdiction and right of soil ends once the territory forms itself into a State.
> This should not be so difficult for you to grasp!*
Click to expand...

It's hardly my fault that you can't read plain English.  The clause plainly says that the Constitution doesn't prejudice the claims of the United States.  Your interpretation involves rhetorical contortions concerning your insistence that the Constitution is a treaty, not a government charter (a ludicrous assertion on its own) and a case involving the use of eminent domain for building a canal.  Your position is a logical absurdity, asserting that the Constitution creates a government with no ability to govern, when _that was the problem the Constitutional Convention was convened to fix in the first place with the Articles of Confederation._ "Hey guys, in order to make a more perfect union, we screwed it up real bad!"  No. That is nonsensical.  
*


James Everett said:



			Well , I warned you!!  
Lets examine what YOUR government was doing at the time of this great war to "end slavery"
		
Click to expand...

*


James Everett said:


> *Nov. 29, 1864, The U.S. Sand Creek massacre of the peaceful Cheyenne village of Black Kettle, who had been told that if he placed that wonderful U.S. Flag above his lodge,his people would not be molested by the U.S. yet as the U.S. Solders stormed into the village, one of the Cheyenne men grabbed the flag and was waiving it back and forth so that the U.S. Soldiers would see that they were friends, he was shot dead.....*
> *“My shame is as big as the earth. I once thought that I was the only man that persevered to be the friend of the white man, but it is hard for me to believe the white man any more."*
> The U.S. Soldiers slaughtered the women and children as the women were on their knees begging for their lives, The pregnant women's wombs were carved open, their unborn children removed and scalped, the nursing infants were tossed into the air, and bayoneted as their little bodies fell back toward the bloodStained ground, women's private parts were carved from their bodies as trophies for YOUR U.S. Soldiers. Crying children were used as target practice with bragging rights for your soldiers as they took turns aiming and shooting them as they ran dodging the bullets from side to side. Your U.S.
> soldiers later claimed that they did these things, *"BECAUSE NITS MAKE LICE!!!!"
> The we have your U.S. governments CDC tuskegee syphilis experiments performed on our Southern Black brothers in Alabama from 1932 until 1972, which even your own U.S. President Bill Clinton remarked as RACIST.
> And we have tour U.S. Governments racist Eugenics program that was upheld as CONstitutional by your SCOTUS, the very program which Nazi Germany used as the model for its Master Race program.
> Please forgive me if your attempts to gain some moral advantage falls on its face.*


I'm not attempting to gain moral advantage.  I have repeatedly asserted that the Union did *not* go to war to end slavery.  The topic of this thread, let me remind you, is the _causes of the war_, not the legality of secession.  It is undeniable that the 1860-61 secessions and accompanying aggressive seizure of federal forts, ships, and arsenals; firing on U.S. flagged vessels; and assaults on federal troops posted for the protection of the South against foreign invasion were the trigger for the war.  What, then, was the cause for secession?  There is only one running theme in the answer to that question, and you know what it is.

The United States has blood on its hands.  I have never denied that, so I'm curious as to why you think posting about it will make a difference.  It's a classic red herring and _ad hominem tu quoque_ fallacious argument to boot, one which you used to once again ignore the actual operative point, which is that "the independence of the United States, and its acquisition of further territory, was brought about by the common effort of the United States, and to simply take the money and run, as it were, is not a just or equitable basis for a compact," if I may quote myself.

Of course, this is simply running with your own argument for the sake of it - after all, the Constitution is in fact not a compact (nor a treaty) between states but proceeds directly from the People to be placed over the states, as ruled in McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819; Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1816; and even as early as Chisholm v. Georgia, 1793.  A government of the people may be dissolved by the people, but not simply broken up by a subordinate local government. You literally have no case, as Daniel Webster was so kind as to point out in 1830 when discussing this very issue with Robert Hayne of South Carolina on the Senate floor:  





			
				Daniel Webster said:
			
		

> So much, Sir, for the argument, even if the premises of the gentleman were granted, or could be proved. But, Sir, the gentleman has failed to maintain his leading proposition. He has not shown, it cannot be shown, that the Constitution is a compact between State governments. The Constitution itself, in its very front, refutes that idea; it declares that it is ordained and established _by the people of the United States_. So far from saying that it is established by the governments of the several States, it does not even say that it is established by the people _of the several States_; but it pronounces that it is established by the people of the United States, in the aggregate. The gentleman says, it must mean no more than the people of the several States. Doubtless, the people of the several States, taken collectively, constitute the people of the United States; but it is in this, their collective capacity, it is as all the people of the United States, that they establish the Constitution. So they declare; and words cannot be plainer than the words used.
> 
> When the gentleman says the Constitution is a compact between the States, he uses language exactly applicable to the old Confederation. He speaks as if he were in Congress before 1789. He describes fully that old state of things then existing. The Confederation was, in strictness, a compact; the States, as States, were parties to it. We had no other general government. But that was found insufficient, and inadequate to the public exigencies. The people were not satisfied with it, and undertook to establish a better. They undertook to form a general government, which should stand on a new basis; not a confederacy, not a league, not a compact between States, but a _Constitution_; a popular government, founded in popular election, directly responsible to the people themselves, and divided into branches with prescribed limits of power, and prescribed duties. They ordained such a government, they gave it the name of a _Constitution_, and therein they established a distribution of powers between this, their general government, and their several State governments. When they shall become dissatisfied with this distribution, they can alter it. Their own power over their own instrument remains. But until they shall alter it, it must stand as their will, and is equally binding on the general government and on the States.


----------



## James Everett

James Everett said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already have.  Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 clearly states that *nothing in the Constitution shall be construed to prejudice the claims of the United States.*  Your failure to accept that doesn't make it not so.
> 
> And the point isn't to gain moral advantage - though it would be easy to do so, since the Confederacy, after all, was based "upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."  The point is that the independence of the United States, and its acquisition of further territory, was brought about by the common effort of the United States, and to simply take the money and run, as it were, is not a just or equitable basis for a compact.
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue9, You posted....
> "Article IV, Section 3, clause 2 as your defence, ....
> I am astonished at how many such as you, have no understanding of their own U.S. CONstitution. Article IV, section 3, clause 2, is in reference to territories belonging to the U.S. States DO NOT BELONG TO THE U.S. they are members of the treaty called the U.S. CONstitution. Again, this issue of municiple jurisdiction was discussed and an opinion rendered concerning the municiple jurisdiction of the land and waters within a State in .....
> *Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 3 How. 212 212 (1845)*
> 
> *Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan*
> 
> *44 U.S. (3 How.) 212
> "*The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama,*or any of the new States, *were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States
> The shores of navigable waters, and the soils under them, were not granted by the Constitution to the United States, but were reserved to the States respectively, (individually) and the new States have the same rights, sovereignty, and jurisdiction over this subject as the original States. *Upon the admission of Alabama into the union, the right of eminent domain, which had been temporarily held by the United States, passed to the State*."
> I do not understand your inability to grasp this point.
> *The U.S. Municipal jurisdiction and right of soil ends once the territory forms itself into a State.
> This should not be so difficult for you to grasp!
> Well , I warned you!!
> Lets examine what YOUR government was doing at the time of this great war to "end slavery"*
> *Nov. 29, 1864, The U.S. Sand Creek massacre of the peaceful Cheyenne village of Black Kettle, who had been told that if he placed that wonderful U.S. Flag above his lodge,his people would not be molested by the U.S. yet as the U.S. Solders stormed into the village, one of the Cheyenne men grabbed the flag and was waiving it back and forth so that the U.S. Soldiers would see that they were friends, he was shot dead.....*
> *“My shame is as big as the earth. I once thought that I was the only man that persevered to be the friend of the white man, but it is hard for me to believe the white man any more."*
> The U.S. Soldiers slaughtered the women and children as the women were on their knees begging for their lives, The pregnant women's wombs were carved open, their unborn children removed and scalped, the nursing infants were tossed into the air, and bayoneted as their little bodies fell back toward the bloodStained ground, women's private parts were carved from their bodies as trophies for YOUR U.S. Soldiers. Crying children were used as target practice with bragging rights for your soldiers as they took turns aiming and shooting them as they ran dodging the bullets from side to side. Your U.S.
> soldiers later claimed that they did these things, *"BECAUSE NITS MAKE LICE!!!!"
> The we have your U.S. governments CDC tuskegee syphilis experiments performed on our Southern Black brothers in Alabama from 1932 until 1972, which even your own U.S. President Bill Clinton remarked as RACIST.
> And we have tour U.S. Governments racist Eugenics program that was upheld as CONstitutional by your SCOTUS, the very program which Nazi Germany used as the model for its Master Race program.
> Please forgive me if your attempts to gain some moral advantage falls on its face.
> *
Click to expand...


----------



## paperview

JakeStarkey said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense, guys, but since the South refused to follow constitutional, electoral process and then attacked the national government, in effect pissing on Old Glory and the Patriot Fathers, the President and Congress constitutionally, electorally empowered and responsible for suppressing insurrection.
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey, please explain how "South refused to follow constitutional, electoral process and then attacked the national government."  Just because Lincoln was not allowed on the ballot in the Southern States was not a violation of the electoral process, and certainly not law. YOUR two party duopoly control the electoral process in your U.S. to this day, not allowing third party candidates to appear on the ballot in many States in each electoral process. Please cite the law which made secession an illegal act, which would then make such rise to "Insurrection". All you need do, is cite the law, Article within your U.S. CONstitution, or the amendment that makes secession illegal or unlawful, then your claim of "Insurrection" may hold water. Even so, as I have posted, the 1793 act for calling forth the Militia by the Executive requires FIRST, that a State legislature make an application, (Request) of the Executive before the Executive may act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, James, that has all been explained over and over and over, so you don't get "just once more."
> 
> Contact paperveiw by conversation.  She is the acknowledged unchallenged expert on this issue, on the Board.
> 
> If she has time, she may be willing to educate you.
> 
> You may ramble all you want in ignorance, but you don't have the power to drag anyone along who corrects you.
Click to expand...


Rogue 9 here seems to be doing just fine...and I must say...
What a kick ass OP.

Congrats on a fine piece of work Rogue.



I'm quite busy right now, so not able to spend much time here, but maybe I'll be able to add a little, and I'll enjoy reading more of your well presented thread.      ..................''n Thanks Jake.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Rogue 9 is doing a good, good job.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James Everett, show your face, you skunk.  Don't run away.


----------



## James Everett

Rogue 9 said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already have.  Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 clearly states that *nothing in the Constitution shall be construed to prejudice the claims of the United States.*  Your failure to accept that doesn't make it not so.
> 
> And the point isn't to gain moral advantage - though it would be easy to do so, since the Confederacy, after all, was based "upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."  The point is that the independence of the United States, and its acquisition of further territory, was brought about by the common effort of the United States, and to simply take the money and run, as it were, is not a just or equitable basis for a compact.
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue9, You posted....
> "Article IV, Section 3, clause 2 as your defence, ....
> I am astonished at how many such as you, have no understanding of their own U.S. CONstitution. Article IV, section 3, clause 2, is in reference to territories belonging to the U.S. States DO NOT BELONG TO THE U.S. they are members of the treaty called the U.S. CONstitution. Again, this issue of municiple jurisdiction was discussed and an opinion rendered concerning the municiple jurisdiction of the land and waters within a State in .....
> *Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 3 How. 212 212 (1845)*
> 
> *Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan*
> 
> *44 U.S. (3 How.) 212
> "*The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama,*or any of the new States, *were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States
> The shores of navigable waters, and the soils under them, were not granted by the Constitution to the United States, but were reserved to the States respectively, (individually) and the new States have the same rights, sovereignty, and jurisdiction over this subject as the original States. *Upon the admission of Alabama into the union, the right of eminent domain, which had been temporarily held by the United States, passed to the State*."
> I do not understand your inability to grasp this point.
> *The U.S. Municipal jurisdiction and right of soil ends once the territory forms itself into a State.
> This should not be so difficult for you to grasp!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's hardly my fault that you can't read plain English.  The clause plainly says that the Constitution doesn't prejudice the claims of the United States.  Your interpretation involves rhetorical contortions concerning your insistence that the Constitution is a treaty, not a government charter (a ludicrous assertion on its own) and a case involving the use of eminent domain for building a canal.  Your position is a logical absurdity, asserting that the Constitution creates a government with no ability to govern, when _that was the problem the Constitutional Convention was convened to fix in the first place with the Articles of Confederation._ "Hey guys, in order to make a more perfect union, we screwed it up real bad!"  No. That is nonsensical.
> *
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well , I warned you!!
> Lets examine what YOUR government was doing at the time of this great war to "end slavery"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Nov. 29, 1864, The U.S. Sand Creek massacre of the peaceful Cheyenne village of Black Kettle, who had been told that if he placed that wonderful U.S. Flag above his lodge,his people would not be molested by the U.S. yet as the U.S. Solders stormed into the village, one of the Cheyenne men grabbed the flag and was waiving it back and forth so that the U.S. Soldiers would see that they were friends, he was shot dead.....*
> *“My shame is as big as the earth. I once thought that I was the only man that persevered to be the friend of the white man, but it is hard for me to believe the white man any more."*
> The U.S. Soldiers slaughtered the women and children as the women were on their knees begging for their lives, The pregnant women's wombs were carved open, their unborn children removed and scalped, the nursing infants were tossed into the air, and bayoneted as their little bodies fell back toward the bloodStained ground, women's private parts were carved from their bodies as trophies for YOUR U.S. Soldiers. Crying children were used as target practice with bragging rights for your soldiers as they took turns aiming and shooting them as they ran dodging the bullets from side to side. Your U.S.
> soldiers later claimed that they did these things, *"BECAUSE NITS MAKE LICE!!!!"
> The we have your U.S. governments CDC tuskegee syphilis experiments performed on our Southern Black brothers in Alabama from 1932 until 1972, which even your own U.S. President Bill Clinton remarked as RACIST.
> And we have tour U.S. Governments racist Eugenics program that was upheld as CONstitutional by your SCOTUS, the very program which Nazi Germany used as the model for its Master Race program.
> Please forgive me if your attempts to gain some moral advantage falls on its face.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not attempting to gain moral advantage.  I have repeatedly asserted that the Union did *not* go to war to end slavery.  The topic of this thread, let me remind you, is the _causes of the war_, not the legality of secession.  It is undeniable that the 1860-61 secessions and accompanying aggressive seizure of federal forts, ships, and arsenals; firing on U.S. flagged vessels; and assaults on federal troops posted for the protection of the South against foreign invasion were the trigger for the war.  What, then, was the cause for secession?  There is only one running theme in the answer to that question, and you know what it is.
> 
> The United States has blood on its hands.  I have never denied that, so I'm curious as to why you think posting about it will make a difference.  It's a classic red herring and _ad hominem tu quoque_ fallacious argument to boot, one which you used to once again ignore the actual operative point, which is that "the independence of the United States, and its acquisition of further territory, was brought about by the common effort of the United States, and to simply take the money and run, as it were, is not a just or equitable basis for a compact," if I may quote myself.
> 
> Of course, this is simply running with your own argument for the sake of it - after all, the Constitution is in fact not a compact (nor a treaty) between states but proceeds directly from the People to be placed over the states, as ruled in McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819; Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1816; and even as early as Chisholm v. Georgia, 1793.  A government of the people may be dissolved by the people, but not simply broken up by a subordinate local government. You literally have no case, as Daniel Webster was so kind as to point out in 1830 when discussing this very issue with Robert Hayne of South Carolina on the Senate floor:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Webster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So much, Sir, for the argument, even if the premises of the gentleman were granted, or could be proved. But, Sir, the gentleman has failed to maintain his leading proposition. He has not shown, it cannot be shown, that the Constitution is a compact between State governments. The Constitution itself, in its very front, refutes that idea; it declares that it is ordained and established _by the people of the United States_. So far from saying that it is established by the governments of the several States, it does not even say that it is established by the people _of the several States_; but it pronounces that it is established by the people of the United States, in the aggregate. The gentleman says, it must mean no more than the people of the several States. Doubtless, the people of the several States, taken collectively, constitute the people of the United States; but it is in this, their collective capacity, it is as all the people of the United States, that they establish the Constitution. So they declare; and words cannot be plainer than the words used.
> 
> When the gentleman says the Constitution is a compact between the States, he uses language exactly applicable to the old Confederation. He speaks as if he were in Congress before 1789. He describes fully that old state of things then existing. The Confederation was, in strictness, a compact; the States, as States, were parties to it. We had no other general government. But that was found insufficient, and inadequate to the public exigencies. The people were not satisfied with it, and undertook to establish a better. They undertook to form a general government, which should stand on a new basis; not a confederacy, not a league, not a compact between States, but a _Constitution_; a popular government, founded in popular election, directly responsible to the people themselves, and divided into branches with prescribed limits of power, and prescribed duties. They ordained such a government, they gave it the name of a _Constitution_, and therein they established a distribution of powers between this, their general government, and their several State governments. When they shall become dissatisfied with this distribution, they can alter it. Their own power over their own instrument remains. But until they shall alter it, it must stand as their will, and is equally binding on the general government and on the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> [/QUOTE
> Rogue9
Click to expand...




paperview said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense, guys, but since the South refused to follow constitutional, electoral process and then attacked the national government, in effect pissing on Old Glory and the Patriot Fathers, the President and Congress constitutionally, electorally empowered and responsible for suppressing insurrection.
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey, please explain how "South refused to follow constitutional, electoral process and then attacked the national government."  Just because Lincoln was not allowed on the ballot in the Southern States was not a violation of the electoral process, and certainly not law. YOUR two party duopoly control the electoral process in your U.S. to this day, not allowing third party candidates to appear on the ballot in many States in each electoral process. Please cite the law which made secession an illegal act, which would then make such rise to "Insurrection". All you need do, is cite the law, Article within your U.S. CONstitution, or the amendment that makes secession illegal or unlawful, then your claim of "Insurrection" may hold water. Even so, as I have posted, the 1793 act for calling forth the Militia by the Executive requires FIRST, that a State legislature make an application, (Request) of the Executive before the Executive may act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, James, that has all been explained over and over and over, so you don't get "just once more."
> 
> Contact paperveiw by conversation.  She is the acknowledged unchallenged expert on this issue, on the Board.
> 
> If she has time, she may be willing to educate you.
> 
> You may ramble all you want in ignorance, but you don't have the power to drag anyone along who corrects you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 here seems to be doing just fine...and I must say...
> What a kick ass OP.
> 
> Congrats on a fine piece of work Rogue.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm quite busy right now, so not able to spend much time here, but maybe I'll be able to add a little, and I'll enjoy reading more of your well presented thread.      ..................''n Thanks Jake.
Click to expand...




paperview said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense, guys, but since the South refused to follow constitutional, electoral process and then attacked the national government, in effect pissing on Old Glory and the Patriot Fathers, the President and Congress constitutionally, electorally empowered and responsible for suppressing insurrection.
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey, please explain how "South refused to follow constitutional, electoral process and then attacked the national government."  Just because Lincoln was not allowed on the ballot in the Southern States was not a violation of the electoral process, and certainly not law. YOUR two party duopoly control the electoral process in your U.S. to this day, not allowing third party candidates to appear on the ballot in many States in each electoral process. Please cite the law which made secession an illegal act, which would then make such rise to "Insurrection". All you need do, is cite the law, Article within your U.S. CONstitution, or the amendment that makes secession illegal or unlawful, then your claim of "Insurrection" may hold water. Even so, as I have posted, the 1793 act for calling forth the Militia by the Executive requires FIRST, that a State legislature make an application, (Request) of the Executive before the Executive may act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, James, that has all been explained over and over and over, so you don't get "just once more."
> 
> Contact paperveiw by conversation.  She is the acknowledged unchallenged expert on this issue, on the Board.
> 
> If she has time, she may be willing to educate you.
> 
> You may ramble all you want in ignorance, but you don't have the power to drag anyone along who corrects you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 here seems to be doing just fine...and I must say...
> What a kick ass OP.
> 
> Congrats on a fine piece of work Rogue.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm quite busy right now, so not able to spend much time here, but maybe I'll be able to add a little, and I'll enjoy reading more of your well presented thread.      ..................''n Thanks Jake.
Click to expand...


Well Paperview, so good of you to join the discussion....
Now since your fan has been begging for you to join in, lets address you first, then I will get to Rogue9.
Now, Paperview, you have stated.....
*"Nonsense, guys, but since the South refused to follow constitutional, electoral process and then attacked the national government, in effect pissing on Old Glory and the Patriot Fathers, the President and Congress constitutionally, electorally empowered and responsible for suppressing insurrection."*
_Paperview, allow me to introduce the definition of insurrection to you......
This definition comes from Johnson's dictionary of the English language (1755 edition), this is the definition that both the founders' and the framers' of YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution would have considered......
*Insurre'ction. n.f. {injurga Latin.] A
Seditious rifing ; a rebellious commotion.
This leads us to the definition of Rebellion, which is defined from the same source.....
ReBc'llion. n, f. [rtbellion, French;
rcbellio, Latin ; from rebel j
Insurrection Against lawful authority.
*_
Now, Paperview, you have stated that *the President and Congress are constitutionally empowered and responsible for suppressing insurrection.*
_Now, I challenge you to cite the law, Article within the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, or amendment thereof that states that secession is unlawful, or illegal.
You see paperview, there first must be a law established for there to be an insurrection against the lawful authority, so PLEASE by all means CITE SUCH LAW.
Now I address Rogue9.....
Your fan seems to think you are doing a good job, I think NOT! Well actually you are doing a great job twisting and contorting, trying in vain to find a definition, or at least redefine words to mean what you need to help your lost position. 
First I stated correctly that the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution was a TREATY between 
sovereigns, you claimed it to be a Compact, which I explained is the same as a treaty supplying you withe the definition of each in order to prove the point. When that didn't help your position, you next claimed it to be a CHARTER. ..._
_Charter is defined in Johnson's dictionary of the English language (1755 edition), this is the definition that both the Founders' and the Framers of YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution would have considered....._
_*Charter.....
Cha'rtbr. h. /. [ckarta,,hanvi.'\
I .* _*A charter is a written evidence of things
done between nr. n and man. Cbnrttrs
are divided into charurs of the king,
and charter! of private perfons.*
_*CO'MPACT**.*_ *«. / [faSum, Latin.]* *A*
*contract ; an accord ; an agreement ; a*
*mutual and settled appointment between*
*two or more.*
*Treaty....*
*Tre'aty. n.f. {traite, French.]*
*1. Negotiation; aft of treating.*
*Siic begin a treaty to procure,,*
*And ftath.'h terms betw xt both their rcijucfts.*
*Spenfir.*
*He caft by maty and by trains*
*Her to perfuade. Spenfer.*
*2. A compaft of accommodation relating*
*to public affairs.*
*Treatise....*
*Tre'atise. ». /. [fraaatus, Lit.} Discourse*
*; written contract.*
*Constitution...*
*Constitu'tiOn. n.f. [from conjlitute-l*
*1. The act of constituting ; enacting ;
deputing ; establishing ; producing.*
Next, Rogue9, you have pointed out that YOUR U.S. CONstitution begins with the words...
"We the people" and that the States had no say in the ratification process, that it was in fact ratified by the people.
If in fact this is the case, the YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution established a _*de facto *government, an unlawful and illegal government, and the fact is that the Articles of Confederation are indeed the lawful and legal government._
*Article XIII.*
*Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.*
*Well Rogue9, did the legislatures of every State ratify YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution?*
*Further Rogue9 if indeed the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution was ratified by "We the people", then it amounts to nothing more than a simple contract between the men the living. One cannot eastblish a contract that binds his posterity, such contract would have ended with the death of the last living man at the time in which the contract was entered. Your great grandparents, nor your Grand Parents, nor your parents can enter their posterity into a contract that is binding upon them, this is why all debts are paid from the estate of the deceased, and cannot be passed on to the deceased posterity once the deceased estate has been liquidated, the lender has no other recourse, and surely none to hold you as a binding party to any contract that any of the aforementioned entered into. *
*All of this leads back to the original point....*
*YOU MUST CITE THE LAW, ARTICLE WITHIN YOUR U.S. CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT THERETO, STATUTE, OR LAW, THAT MAKES SECESSION AN ILLEGAL ACT.  *
*SORRY IF I HAVE HURT YOUR FAN, IN CORRECTING YOU, AND PAPERVIEW.*


_

_


----------



## James Everett

JAKESTARKEY, 
I JUST DID, AND I AM TRULY SORRY FOR BITCH SLAPPING YOUR MENTORS!!!!!  NOT!!!!


----------



## James Everett

One more thing, Mr. Starkey, 
I am not at your beck and call. This is one of many places wherein I post the truth.
TRY CSAgov.org for example.


----------



## Rogue 9

James Everett said:


> Well Paperview, so good of you to join the discussion....
> Now since your fan has been begging for you to join in, lets address you first, then I will get to Rogue9.
> Now, Paperview, you have stated.....
> *"Nonsense, guys, but since the South refused to follow constitutional, electoral process and then attacked the national government, in effect pissing on Old Glory and the Patriot Fathers, the President and Congress constitutionally, electorally empowered and responsible for suppressing insurrection."*
> _Paperview, allow me to introduce the definition of insurrection to you......
> This definition comes from Johnson's dictionary of the English language (1755 edition), this is the definition that both the founders' and the framers' of YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution would have considered......
> *Insurre'ction. n.f. {injurga Latin.] A
> Seditious rifing ; a rebellious commotion.
> This leads us to the definition of Rebellion, which is defined from the same source.....
> ReBc'llion. n, f. [rtbellion, French;
> rcbellio, Latin ; from rebel j
> Insurrection Against lawful authority.
> *_
> Now, Paperview, you have stated that *the President and Congress are constitutionally empowered and responsible for suppressing insurrection.*
> _Now, I challenge you to cite the law, Article within the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, or amendment thereof that states that secession is unlawful, or illegal.
> You see paperview, there first must be a law established for there to be an insurrection against the lawful authority, so PLEASE by all means CITE SUCH LAW._



Funny, I didn't see her say any of that in here.  Been stalking people again?  Anyway...
_


James Everett said:



			Now I address Rogue9.....
Your fan seems to think you are doing a good job, I think NOT! Well actually you are doing a great job twisting and contorting, trying in vain to find a definition, or at least redefine words to mean what you need to help your lost position. 
First I stated correctly that the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution was a TREATY between 
sovereigns, you claimed it to be a Compact, which I explained is the same as a treaty supplying you withe the definition of each in order to prove the point. When that didn't help your position, you next claimed it to be a CHARTER. ...
Charter is defined in Johnson's dictionary of the English language (1755 edition), this is the definition that both the Founders' and the Framers of YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution would have considered.....
*Charter.....
Cha'rtbr. h. /. [ckarta,,hanvi.'\
I .*

Click to expand...

_


James Everett said:


> *A charter is a written evidence of things
> done between nr. n and man. Cbnrttrs
> are divided into charurs of the king,
> and charter! of private perfons.*
> _*CO'MPACT**.*_ *«. / [faSum, Latin.]* *A*
> *contract ; an accord ; an agreement ; a*
> *mutual and settled appointment between*
> *two or more.*
> *Treaty....*
> *Tre'aty. n.f. {traite, French.]*
> *1. Negotiation; aft of treating.*
> *Siic begin a treaty to procure,,*
> *And ftath.'h terms betw xt both their rcijucfts.*
> *Spenfir.*
> *He caft by maty and by trains*
> *Her to perfuade. Spenfer.*
> *2. A compaft of accommodation relating*
> *to public affairs.*
> *Treatise....*
> *Tre'atise. ». /. [fraaatus, Lit.} Discourse*
> *; written contract.*
> *Constitution...*
> *Constitu'tiOn. n.f. [from conjlitute-l*
> *1. The act of constituting ; enacting ;
> deputing ; establishing ; producing.*
> Next, Rogue9, you have pointed out that YOUR U.S. CONstitution begins with the words...
> "We the people" and that the States had no say in the ratification process, that it was in fact ratified by the people.
> If in fact this is the case, the YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution established a _*de facto *government, an unlawful and illegal government, and the fact is that the Articles of Confederation are indeed the lawful and legal government._
> *Article XIII.*
> *Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.*
> *Well Rogue9, did the legislatures of every State ratify YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution?*
> *Further Rogue9 if indeed the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution was ratified by "We the people", then it amounts to nothing more than a simple contract between the men the living. One cannot eastblish a contract that binds his posterity, such contract would have ended with the death of the last living man at the time in which the contract was entered. Your great grandparents, nor your Grand Parents, nor your parents can enter their posterity into a contract that is binding upon them, this is why all debts are paid from the estate of the deceased, and cannot be passed on to the deceased posterity once the deceased estate has been liquidated, the lender has no other recourse, and surely none to hold you as a binding party to any contract that any of the aforementioned entered into. *
> *All of this leads back to the original point....*
> *YOU MUST CITE THE LAW, ARTICLE WITHIN YOUR U.S. CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT THERETO, STATUTE, OR LAW, THAT MAKES SECESSION AN ILLEGAL ACT.  *
> *SORRY IF I HAVE HURT YOUR FAN, IN CORRECTING YOU, AND PAPERVIEW.*


No apology necessary, since you have done no such thing.  I was simply operating within the framework of your own argument to illustrate a point.  You are trapped, Mr. Everett; either the Constitution is a binding agreement between the states, in which case no single state may break it (that is, after all, the entire point of a contract) *or* (as is actually true, as ruled by the Supreme Court on multiple occasions) the Constitution was created and ratified by the People of the United States in convention assembled to be the sovereign government of the United States.  Either way, you're wrong.  You're entirely predictable; your argument patterns are unchanging and it's a simple matter to get you to talk yourself into a corner, as you have done.  

You know as well as I how the Constitution was ratified, or should since you proclaim yourself an expert on the subject.  The Constitutional Convention sent the Constitution to the Articles Congress, which transmitted it to the state legislatures.  The legislatures then called for the special election of conventions specifically for ratification (or not), the act of which signals agreement with the dictates of the conventions - which is what happened.  The state legislatures specifically put the question to the people, which satisfies the requirement.  

I'm curious about an apparent contradiction in your position, however.  You say that if the Constitution was established by the people, then it is only binding on the people then living and can have no continuity of government.  Why, then, do the states in your view?  What makes them so special that they endure while a government established by the People supposedly does not?


----------



## JakeStarkey

James Everett, go whither you will, but you have only 'bitch slapped' yourself.  Try this for real points in a real history forum with real terms, definitions, and narratives, you would not make it by the first round.

You simply don't have what it takes.


----------



## James Everett

Rogue9,
First you asked....
*"I'm curious about an apparent contradiction in your position, however. You say that if the Constitution was established by the people, then it is only binding on the people then living and can have no continuity of government. Why, then, do the states in your view? What makes them so special that they endure while a government established by the People supposedly does not?"*
The State governments only exist by the voluntary accession of new citizens as they come of age. If however, the U.S. CONstitution is a contract between "We the people" then it died with those who agreed to that contract. We see that the people at the age of consent in the Southern States, as in Tennessee the vote was put to the people of the State, they chose to exit the union, hence that contract between their ancestors who consented to it when Tennessee became a member State in the union, was not binding on them. If however the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution was a treaty between States, then its accession is by each member State respectively, and as the Treaty, gave specifically enumerated powers to the U.S. (THE STATES COLLECTIVELY), and RESERVED all others to themselves, then YOU MUST CITE THE LAW, ARTICLE WITHIN THE TREATY/CONstitution,OR AN AMENDMENT THEREOF WHICH MAKES SECESSION AN UNLAWFUL OR ILLEGAL ACT. THE STATES RETAINED EVERY RIGHT OF SOVEREIGNTY THAT THEY DID NOT EXCLUSIVELY DELEGATE TO THE UNITED STATES_. _*YOU MUST CITE THE POWER THAT THEY DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES TO HOLD THEM AGAINST THEIR WILL, OTHERWISE THE POWER TO EXIT THE UNION WAS RETAINED BY EACH STATE INDIVIDUALLY.*


It appears it was Starky who posted it, I get you Yankees Confused, as you all make the same pathetic losing Arguments.
Now, Rogue9, again read what the States agreed to in the Articles...
.*"nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."*
Were the alterations to the Articles via the 1787/1789 CONstitution CONFIRMED by each State's legislature?
You state that....
*"The legislatures then called for the special election of conventions specifically for ratification (or not), the act of which signals agreement with the dictates of the conventions - which is what happened."

Therefore the State legislature agreed first with the Philadelphia conventions proposal and then with the State their convention, hence were party to the TREATY, They could have refused, and the people, would not have been allowed to elect delegates to attend a convention within their State.
In other words the State legislatures had the AUTHORITY to NOT allow a convention to take place within their State. The 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution had to have the blessing of each States legislature, hence they were party to it, they each sent delegates to the Philadelphia Convention, and their delegates did debate and create the TREATY to present FIRST to each of their State legislatures, then it was each States legislature that allowed a State convention. The State legislatures agreed first, and then allowed the people of their respective States to elect delegates to a convention. In other words it was a treaty agreed to by the State legislatures, and then those State legislatures gave voice through elected delegates.
AGAIN......According to international law....
"Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties. As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states
When a state withdraws from a multi-lateral treaty, that treaty will still otherwise remain in force among the other parties, unless, of course, otherwise should or could be interpreted as agreed upon between the remaining states parties to the treaty." 
I hope that I have been able to educate you concerning YOUR U.S. CONstitution these past couple of days. I will likely not be available to help you again until next weekend.
If you are able, please try and come up with some other alterations of definitions to benefit your case, it is quite amusing witnessing your dancing.......

*


----------



## James Everett

Starky boy,
The definitions that I posted are TRUE DEFINITIONS, NOT THE CURRENT REVISIONIST DEFINITIONS THAT YOU WISH TO PRESENT TO HELP YOUR PATHETIC CASE. You simply keep digging yourself further into a hole.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James, don't be silly.  Many of us are either from the South or lived most of our adult lives in the South.  And that is unimportant  The crux of your argument remains the fallacy that the states remained autonomous and sovereign after the formation of the Union.

You pay attention to Rogue and paperview, and you will learn how much you yet have to learn.

How fortuitous for you that you came to the Board.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> James, don't be silly.  Many of us are either from the South or lived most of our adult lives in the South.  And that is unimportant  The crux of your argument remains the fallacy that the states remained autonomous and sovereign after the formation of the Union.
> 
> You pay attention to Rogue and paperview, and you will learn how much you yet have to learn.
> 
> How fortuitous for you that you came to the Board.


Well, YOUR sweetheart "Paperview" never showed up, and as for Rogue9, the pathetic attempts to find a definition to benefit his/her case were pathetic, he/she didn't even know the correct definitions he/she was posting. 
The fact is, that with all the two of you posturing and stomping your feet, diverting, and running in every direction in an attempt to run from the one basic fact that could win the day for you, neither of you have been able to fill my one simple request, that being to.....
Cite the law, Article within YOUR U.S. CONstitution,or amendment thereof that states that makes secession an unlawful, or illegal act, and I add here, the power DELEGATED to the United States,(The States collectively) that grants the collective the power to prevent a State from exercising its RETAINED sovereign power to withdraw from the union.
READ the tenth amendment here....
*Amendment X*
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
It is simply what is states.....
You Sir must...Cite the law, Article within YOUR U.S. CONstitution,or amendment thereof that states that makes secession an unlawful, or illegal act, and I add here, the power DELEGATED to the United States,(The States collectively) that grants the collective the power to prevent a State from exercising its RETAINED sovereign power to withdraw from the union.


----------



## JakeStarkey

A whole world's narrative continued after 1791, James.  Tell us how Abraham Lincoln, the Civil War, and the 14th Amendment affected the 10th's applicability after 1869 in American history.  The fact is the states never had a retained, stated, or inherent power to leave the Union.


----------



## James Everett

Starkey, 
First it was the result of the poison fruit of Lincolns rebellion to the authority of the U.S. CONstitutions tenth amendment, the 14th created a U.S. Citizen, from an American citizens, leading to the fictional JAKE STARKEY rather than the flesh and blood Jake Starkey, hence the creation of a fictional individual who has been made chattel to the U.S. debt via the U.S. Bankruptcy.
You have stated here....
"The fact is the states never had a retained, stated, or inherent power to leave the Union."
Again, where does this claim of yours reside? Which Article States that a State cannot leave the union?
Which Amendment States that a State cannot leave the union?
What law; What Statute, states that a State cannot leave the union?
You just defeated your own position, by stating..."The fact is the states never had a retained, *stated*, or inherent power to leave the Union."
The fact that it was NOT a POWER STATED AS BEING DELEGATED TO THE U.S. MEANS THAT IT WAS RETAINED BY EACH STATE INDIVIDUALLY. READ THE AMENDMENT. 
Alexander Hamilton, the most ardent nationalist, stated to the effect as a complaint at the debates that everyone was complaining that the Constitution grants this power or that power to the United States, but does not mention what powers that the United States does not have. Hamilton stated that it would be impossible to enumerate every power that the United States as a collective does not have, therefore it is understood that any power NOT delegated to it is retained by each State individually. his as well as his words that I have already posted in #32 of the debates, led to the tenth amendment, TO BE SURE THAT SUCH BE UNDERSTOOD AND ENUMERATED. I understand that this destroys your wish to validate Lincolns destruction of the union, and consolidate the government into a single national government system, hence the 13th, and 17th amendments as a result thereof. Now instead of State governments being party to and a union of States, you have a corporately owned two party duopoly, which exists via perpetual war and hegemony. 
You really do need to read Madison's explanation of the system in #39 and 62, even though he was conning the States, and the people. Lincoln simply fulfilled the nationalist wishes of those who claimed to be "federalists"
#39...."The proposed Constitution, therefore is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both. In its foundation it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partly federal and partly national; in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal; in the extent of them, again, it is federal, not national; and, finally, in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal nor wholly national."
"The idea of a national government involves in it, not only an authority over the individual citizens, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things."
YOU, Sir, now have a wholly national government system wherein it holds authority over you, and everything that you think that you own. Do you hold allodial title to any property? NO you do not. Don't pay your tribute/income tax, and see how long you hold that property. Without property that is your own, you have no place to set your feet, hence no place to set yourself or your belongings, hence you exist  JAKE STARKEY exists as a corporate fiction, Jake Starkey through UCC becomes the fictional JAKE STARKEY chattel to YOUR national governments debt. UCC replaced common law, wherein under common law, you were free to do whatever you please as long as you did not infringe on the life liberty, or property of another. UCC is all based on contracts. For example, obtain a gun permit and you have now entered into a contract with the government to keep and bear arms, in other words, you willingly forfeited Jake Starkeys right to bear arms, and became JAKE STARKEY under UCC. The government cannot prevent you from contracting therefore you willinglcontractually give up your rights without realiit. My computer is freezing up now, gotta go


----------



## Picaro

eagle1462010 said:


> The Civil War was far more than a slavery issue...........The deep divisions had been going on many issues way before it went to blows................Mostly on the South not having a voice..............The North had the large population and were Industrial, while the South relied on farming..........aka cotton..........with a much smaller population.............the South basically had no chance whatsoever in the House of Representatives...........



Yes, and that larger population was responsible for Lincoln's election as an entirely regional candidate in a three way race. Lincoln, Seward and Fremont were representing big northern businesses and lobbying for huge Federal subsidies for railroads and protectionist tariffs for the financial interests the Republican Party was formed to represent, and of course wanted to pass the costs burdens off mostly on the Southern states, for 'national improvements' they wouldn't benefit from at all economically.



> .and the North imposed laws that pissed off the South.  Secession was talked about in 1820..............



Yes, in 1828, over the same reasons, higher taxes and tariffs that would fall very unequally on southerners. Before that secession was often a cry; the New England states threatened to secede several times before, and during, the War of 1812 for the same reasons; they felt *they* were carrying more than their share of the Federal tax burdens at the time, too. They were sniveling at the time that the Federal spending benefitted Virginia and the mid-Atlantic states instead of their own states.

We already know abolitionists didn't make up a majority of the Republican Party, and we already know the North had slave states, and we already know what the Republican Congresses and Senators wanted by what bills they concentrated on first, and none of them were about ' ending slavery n stuff'. Cherry pick  cites from grandiose, pompous, and self-serving political speeches all you want, they mean little or nothing about the true motivations of those making the laws, any more than they mean anything today; it was about money and getting rid of political obstacles to loot the Federal Treasury and carry pork back home, and get bribes from big business.

Need more evidence of Republican motivations? See the blatant corruption of the Reconstruction farce, the Black Codes in the North that prevented blacks from migrating to northern states, including Lincoln's own Illinois, after the war, along with the corruption and cronyism during the war itself in supplying the Federal armies, in the Johnson and Grant adminstrations. Also see Lincoln going against his own Cabinet in deliberately provoking the war over Fort Sumter, with only his Postmaster General appointee supporting that illegal action, the rest being opposed, including General Winfield Scott and Seward himself being opposed to that. Lincoln was going to go to war, no matter what; it was the only way to remove southern political opposition to the railroad bills, massive tariff increases, and 'Homestead Act' scams to support the railroads subsidies.

The war was over two divergent sets of wealthy financial interests and the political power exerted by those interests, and nothing more.


----------



## paperview

James Everett said:


> One more thing, Mr. Starkey,
> I am not at your beck and call. This is one of many places wherein I post the truth.
> TRY CSAgov.org for example.



Yeah, like I'm about to waste my time arguing with a full blown kookanoodle.

From your website:

*'"The government for the Confederate States of America never surrendered to the United States of America and still exist in a state of forced exile. The C.S.A and its Citizens are currently under active occupation by a United States imposed national government system."*

**


----------



## James Everett

paperview said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more thing, Mr. Starkey,
> I am not at your beck and call. This is one of many places wherein I post the truth.
> TRY CSAgov.org for example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, like I'm about to waste my time arguing with a full blown kookanoodle.
> 
> From your website:
> 
> *'"The government for the Confederate States of America never surrendered to the United States of America and still exist in a state of forced exile. The C.S.A and its Citizens are currently under active occupation by a United States imposed national government system."*
> 
> **
Click to expand...

Of course you will not discuss the legal issue with me, Paperview, you know you would lose. This will be a great disappointment  to your cheerleader Mr. STARKEY, all his hopes were tied up in you. Now YOUR U.S. Is suppose to be a nation of laws, yet we find your brothers unable to cite the law I have requested, as for you, you will need to do the same, and while you are at it please produce the documents wherein our CSA government was surrendered to YOUR U.S. Or a peace treaty signed between YOUR USA and OUR CSA. Without such documents your case is lost, now who really is the Kook here? A Nation of laws? Cite those laws, produce those documents, I am busy this week, therefore I give you until Friday 9 pm to produce your evidence of fact.


----------



## paperview

There there now.  The nice nurse will be along shortly to give you some more of the nice medication that will help you get through another day in your "occupied Confederate state."

Slavery is still legal in your world.  Maybe you can get one of them bondsmen to rustle up the nurse quick-like.


----------



## James Everett

This is what amuses me most, your cheerleader expected you to really defeat the truth of our position, yet just as all others who have fallen before, you have nothing of relevance to combat the truth, so you revert to childish little insults, which never win and only reveal further the truth which exist regardless of your foolish posts. You are only one in a thousand who have tried and failed. Don't forget the Friday deadline. Good luck!!!!!


----------



## Ravi

James Everett said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more thing, Mr. Starkey,
> I am not at your beck and call. This is one of many places wherein I post the truth.
> TRY CSAgov.org for example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, like I'm about to waste my time arguing with a full blown kookanoodle.
> 
> From your website:
> 
> *'"The government for the Confederate States of America never surrendered to the United States of America and still exist in a state of forced exile. The C.S.A and its Citizens are currently under active occupation by a United States imposed national government system."*
> 
> **
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you will not discuss the legal issue with me, Paperview, you know you would lose. This will be a great disappointment  to your cheerleader Mr. STARKEY, all his hopes were tied up in you. Now YOUR U.S. Is suppose to be a nation of laws, yet we find your brothers unable to cite the law I have requested, as for you, you will need to do the same, and while you are at it please produce the documents wherein our CSA government was surrendered to YOUR U.S. Or a peace treaty signed between YOUR USA and OUR CSA. Without such documents your case is lost, now who really is the Kook here? A Nation of laws? Cite those laws, produce those documents, I am busy this week, therefore I give you until Friday 9 pm to produce your evidence of fact.
Click to expand...

What are you busy doing? Reason I ask, is that you sound like you believe you are a slave and my grass needs cutting....


----------



## James Everett

James Everett said:


> This is what amuses me most, your cheerleader expected you to really defeat the truth of our position, yet just as all others who have fallen before, you have nothing of relevance to combat the truth, so you revert to childish little insults, which never win and only reveal further the truth which exist regardless of your foolish posts. You are only one in a thousand who have tried and failed. Don't forget the Friday deadline. Good luck!!!!!


----------



## James Everett

I really must admit that I am diss appointed as I had been led to expect a real challenge from you, yet all I get is the intellect of an 8 yr old boy making fart noises with his arm pit? Disappointed indeed!


----------



## Bush92

Radical abolitionist and differences in the northern and southern economy's.


----------



## Rotagilla

The south tried to peacefully and legally withdraw from the union. 
The south offered to pay for all federal installations on our property and to pay our share of the national debt at the time.
The lying POS lincoln wanted war, though.
The declaration of independence...which lincoln supported...says;

_When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, *Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.*_

Declaration of Independence
1776


The lying POS lincoln also said;
_*Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can may revolutionize and make their own of so many of the territory as they inhabit." 


Abraham Lincoln 
Jan 12, 1848*_


In his first inaugural address he also said;

_Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that --

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes._


So the southerners who wanted to peacefully withdraw are called "traitors"....but that's just what the british called the colonists who wanted to peacefully separate from england...

Laugh...call names...make fun...mock...whatever you need to make yourself feel better...but southerners aren't over being invaded and having her citizens murdered, property burned, stolen or destroyed, infrastructure ruined any more than negroes are "over" slavery.

yet the north gloats and cheers the war criminal sherman and his "march to the sea"...it's ok...these things will all be corrected in time. This country won't last..and just like other nations that collapse in violence, old grudges will be resolved.


----------



## Rogue 9

James Everett said:


> Rogue9,
> First you asked....
> *"I'm curious about an apparent contradiction in your position, however. You say that if the Constitution was established by the people, then it is only binding on the people then living and can have no continuity of government. Why, then, do the states in your view? What makes them so special that they endure while a government established by the People supposedly does not?"*
> The State governments only exist by the voluntary accession of new citizens as they come of age. If however, the U.S. CONstitution is a contract between "We the people" then it died with those who agreed to that contract. We see that the people at the age of consent in the Southern States, as in Tennessee the vote was put to the people of the State, they chose to exit the union, hence that contract between their ancestors who consented to it when Tennessee became a member State in the union, was not binding on them. If however the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution was a treaty between States, then its accession is by each member State respectively, and as the Treaty, gave specifically enumerated powers to the U.S. (THE STATES COLLECTIVELY), and RESERVED all others to themselves, then YOU MUST CITE THE LAW, ARTICLE WITHIN THE TREATY/CONstitution,OR AN AMENDMENT THEREOF WHICH MAKES SECESSION AN UNLAWFUL OR ILLEGAL ACT. THE STATES RETAINED EVERY RIGHT OF SOVEREIGNTY THAT THEY DID NOT EXCLUSIVELY DELEGATE TO THE UNITED STATES_. _*YOU MUST CITE THE POWER THAT THEY DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES TO HOLD THEM AGAINST THEIR WILL, OTHERWISE THE POWER TO EXIT THE UNION WAS RETAINED BY EACH STATE INDIVIDUALLY.*


Oh, he's figured out smileys.  Cute.  

The judgment of the People of the United States, as a whole, binds the states individually.  The Constitution forms a government, not a treaty organization or a contract; it was conceived as such and presented as such when it was voted upon by the people.  That you continue to insist the opposite does not make it so. The United States as a whole created the Constitution, and only the United States as a whole can unmake it.  I have already cited Article IV multiple times; that you cannot read plain English is not my problem.  

Incidentally, the secession referendum in Tennessee was rigged, twice, and the East Tennessee Convention voted overwhelmingly to break away afterwards, but was denied and repaid for their loyalty with military occupation by the rebels. Evidently the Slave Power was not concerned with principle; it was only okay when they did it.  


James Everett said:


> It appears it was Starky who posted it, I get you Yankees Confused, as you all make the same pathetic losing Arguments.
> Now, Rogue9, again read what the States agreed to in the Articles...
> .*"nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."*
> Were the alterations to the Articles via the 1787/1789 CONstitution CONFIRMED by each State's legislature?
> You state that....
> *"The legislatures then called for the special election of conventions specifically for ratification (or not), the act of which signals agreement with the dictates of the conventions - which is what happened."
> 
> Therefore the State legislature agreed first with the Philadelphia conventions proposal and then with the State their convention, hence were party to the TREATY, They could have refused, and the people, would not have been allowed to elect delegates to attend a convention within their State.
> In other words the State legislatures had the AUTHORITY to NOT allow a convention to take place within their State. The 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution had to have the blessing of each States legislature, hence they were party to it, they each sent delegates to the Philadelphia Convention, and their delegates did debate and create the TREATY to present FIRST to each of their State legislatures, then it was each States legislature that allowed a State convention. The State legislatures agreed first, and then allowed the people of their respective States to elect delegates to a convention. In other words it was a treaty agreed to by the State legislatures, and then those State legislatures gave voice through elected delegates.
> AGAIN......According to international law....
> "Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties. As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states
> When a state withdraws from a multi-lateral treaty, that treaty will still otherwise remain in force among the other parties, unless, of course, otherwise should or could be interpreted as agreed upon between the remaining states parties to the treaty."
> I hope that I have been able to educate you concerning YOUR U.S. CONstitution these past couple of days. I will likely not be available to help you again until next weekend.
> If you are able, please try and come up with some other alterations of definitions to benefit your case, it is quite amusing witnessing your dancing.......*


Do you see the signatures of the state governors at the bottom of the Constitution?  The bills from their legislatures?  The states surrendered their say in the matter to the people, and rightly so.  The Articles government _was not working_; that was the entire point of the Convention in the first place.  

Incidentally, I grow tired of "Yankee."  I'm not from New England, and several of my maternal ancestors served in the 45th Alabama Infantry, CSA.  They were right bastards, too; I've read the journals and letters.  One need not be a Yankee to see what a huge pile of crap the Slave Power was selling.


----------



## Rogue 9

James Everett said:


> Starkey,
> First it was the result of the poison fruit of Lincolns rebellion to the authority of the U.S. CONstitutions tenth amendment, the 14th created a U.S. Citizen, from an American citizens, leading to the fictional JAKE STARKEY rather than the flesh and blood Jake Starkey, hence the creation of a fictional individual who has been made chattel to the U.S. debt via the U.S. Bankruptcy.


Oh, you're one of those Admiralty Law-theory nutters too?  Figures.  Take that to a court sometime, see how far you get.


----------



## JakeStarkey

_*Pseudolaw* _[such as maritime or admiralty law] _encompasses any legal theory developed or action taken that relies heavily on frivolous arguments trumped up in legal language. Pseudolaw shares many homologous and analogous traits withpseudoscience such as the use of argument from authority, equivocation, and quote mining. Like pseudoscience most of the proponents of pseudolaw are laymen with little to no legal experience (outside their own trials and incarcerations). While an overwhelming majority of those in the legal profession reject the arguments, there are a few cranks with law degrees and licenses that push pseudolaw as well. _ Pseudolaw - RationalWiki


----------



## Rogue 9

Picaro said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was far more than a slavery issue...........The deep divisions had been going on many issues way before it went to blows................Mostly on the South not having a voice..............The North had the large population and were Industrial, while the South relied on farming..........aka cotton..........with a much smaller population.............the South basically had no chance whatsoever in the House of Representatives...........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and that larger population was responsible for Lincoln's election as an entirely regional candidate in a three way race. Lincoln, Seward and Fremont were representing big northern businesses and lobbying for huge Federal subsidies for railroads and protectionist tariffs for the financial interests the Republican Party was formed to represent, and of course wanted to pass the costs burdens off mostly on the Southern states, for 'national improvements' they wouldn't benefit from at all economically.
Click to expand...

Please.  In 1860 the South accounted for 75% of U.S. exports, all the slaves in the South were more monetarily valuable than all the railroads and Northern industry combined, and the tariff was at its lowest level since 1816.  The Slave Power had _enormous_ economic power, since free labor tends to produce gigantic profits.  Of course, then you have other problems.


Picaro said:


> .and the North imposed laws that pissed off the South.  Secession was talked about in 1820..............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, in 1828, over the same reasons, higher taxes and tariffs that would fall very unequally on southerners. Before that secession was often a cry; the New England states threatened to secede several times before, and during, the War of 1812 for the same reasons; they felt *they* were carrying more than their share of the Federal tax burdens at the time, too. They were sniveling at the time that the Federal spending benefitted Virginia and the mid-Atlantic states instead of their own states.
> 
> We already know abolitionists didn't make up a majority of the Republican Party, and we already know the North had slave states, and we already know what the Republican Congresses and Senators wanted by what bills they concentrated on first, and none of them were about ' ending slavery n stuff'. Cherry pick  cites from grandiose, pompous, and self-serving political speeches all you want, they mean little or nothing about the true motivations of those making the laws, any more than they mean anything today; it was about money and getting rid of political obstacles to loot the Federal Treasury and carry pork back home, and get bribes from big business.
> 
> Need more evidence of Republican motivations? See the blatant corruption of the Reconstruction farce, the Black Codes in the North that prevented blacks from migrating to northern states, including Lincoln's own Illinois, after the war, along with the corruption and cronyism during the war itself in supplying the Federal armies, in the Johnson and Grant adminstrations. Also see Lincoln going against his own Cabinet in deliberately provoking the war over Fort Sumter, with only his Postmaster General appointee supporting that illegal action, the rest being opposed, including General Winfield Scott and Seward himself being opposed to that. Lincoln was going to go to war, no matter what; it was the only way to remove southern political opposition to the railroad bills, massive tariff increases, and 'Homestead Act' scams to support the railroads subsidies.
> 
> The war was over two divergent sets of wealthy financial interests and the political power exerted by those interests, and nothing more.
Click to expand...

The Reconstruction farce was overseen by Andrew Johnson, a Democrat.  You know, since Lincoln was shot and all.  Which was really too bad for the South; Lincoln openly favored a conciliatory policy and had the influence with Congress to get one; Johnson didn't and got run over by Congress.

"Provoking the war over Fort Sumter," is a laugh riot; there was already a war at that point.  That's kind of what it is when you bombard forts into submission.


James Everett said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, like I'm about to waste my time arguing with a full blown kookanoodle.
> 
> From your website:
> 
> *'"The government for the Confederate States of America never surrendered to the United States of America and still exist in a state of forced exile. The C.S.A and its Citizens are currently under active occupation by a United States imposed national government system."*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you will not discuss the legal issue with me, Paperview, you know you would lose. This will be a great disappointment  to your cheerleader Mr. STARKEY, all his hopes were tied up in you. Now YOUR U.S. Is suppose to be a nation of laws, yet we find your brothers unable to cite the law I have requested, as for you, you will need to do the same, and while you are at it please produce the documents wherein our CSA government was surrendered to YOUR U.S. Or a peace treaty signed between YOUR USA and OUR CSA. Without such documents your case is lost, now who really is the Kook here? A Nation of laws? Cite those laws, produce those documents, I am busy this week, therefore I give you until Friday 9 pm to produce your evidence of fact.
Click to expand...

That's cute.  What makes you think you're in any position to make demands?  Regardless, one doesn't make treaties with defeated rebels.  The Confederate States is a fictional entity, recognized by no country in the world nor by most of its own population - after all, I seriously doubt the slaves were in favor, to say nothing of the large Unionist pockets in Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama.


Rotagilla said:


> The south tried to peacefully and legally withdraw from the union.
> The south offered to pay for all federal installations on our property and to pay our share of the national debt at the time.


Peacefully and legally my ass.  Tell Captain McGowan of the _Star of the West _or Major Anderson commanding Fort Sumter how peaceful that cannon fire was.


Rotagilla said:


> The lying POS lincoln wanted war, though.
> The declaration of independence...which lincoln supported...says;
> 
> _When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
> 
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, *Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.*_
> 
> Declaration of Independence
> 1776


And it also says - directly after where you stopped quoting, interestingly enough; I'm sure that was coincidental - 





			
				Declaration of Independence said:
			
		

> *Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes*; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a *long train* of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--*Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies*; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.


A single Presidential election is quite transient, it's hard to argue Lincoln subjected the Slave Power to a "long train" of anything before he'd even been inaugurated, and the Slave Power certainly exhibited nothing resembling patient sufferance.  You will find no refuge for your cause in the Declaration.



Rotagilla said:


> The lying POS lincoln also said;
> _*Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can may revolutionize and make their own of so many of the territory as they inhabit."
> 
> 
> Abraham Lincoln
> Jan 12, 1848*_


Yeah.  But the Slave Power clearly didn't have the power.  QED.  



Rotagilla said:


> In his first inaugural address he also said;
> 
> _Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that --
> 
> I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
> 
> Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
> 
> Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes._
> 
> 
> So the southerners who wanted to peacefully withdraw are called "traitors"....but that's just what the british called the colonists who wanted to peacefully separate from england...
> 
> Laugh...call names...make fun...mock...whatever you need to make yourself feel better...but southerners aren't over being invaded and having her citizens murdered, property burned, stolen or destroyed, infrastructure ruined any more than negroes are "over" slavery.
> 
> yet the north gloats and cheers the war criminal sherman and his "march to the sea"...it's ok...these things will all be corrected in time. This country won't last..and just like other nations that collapse in violence, old grudges will be resolved.


Make your threats, they mean nothing to me.  Slavery was in no danger of being abolished in 1860 - the Slave Power brought that upon itself when it plunged the country into war when it was not allowed to dictate slavery upon territories that did not want it.  Fanaticism for slavery expansion elected Lincoln - he would not have succeeded if the Deep South hadn't walked out of the Democratic National Convention because it refused to adopt a platform plank guaranteeing slavery in the territories and nominated Breckinridge to undermine Stephen Douglas.  Really that was insane of them; Douglas was a true believer in Manifest Destiny ideology, and would gladly have conquered and made slave states of Cuba and as many Central American countries as he could lay the Army on.  The South chose rebellion and war; had they abided by the electoral process as they were Constitutionally obliged to do, slavery would have persevered for decades.  It was the war, a war fought by the Slave Power to expand slavery, that turned public sentiment in favor of abolition.  

Some things are worth war; that was one of them.  In short:


----------



## whitehall

Lincoln seems to be more than a mortal human in the minds of the slobbering elitist low information literary geniuses in the last hundred and fifty years but he couldn't keep the Union together as president. With all the slick comments and the alleged political skill, Lincoln couldn't hold the freaking Country together. If Lincoln did the right thing and declined to run for a second term the Union would have been preserved for at least another four years and slavery would have faded away with the industrial revolution.


----------



## JakeStarkey

whitehall, are you drinking?


----------



## jillian

Rogue 9 said:


> Despite the fact that it has been over for 149 years, the American Civil War's causes, the motives behind the secession of the Deep South, and even the legality of secession itself are still matters of hot debate in historical circles. There has been so much historical revisionism on the subject (on both sides, no less), that it has become difficult to get a clear account of the reasons behind it, although the facts of the actual events are widely available.
> 
> In this thread, I'm going to lay out the facts as I see them. I freely admit to being a Unionist and ardent anti-Confederate, but feel that these are positions borne out by the objective facts of the matter rather than damaging biases. Make of that what you will.
> 
> First, the motives behind secession.
> 
> Too often, you will see apologists for the Confederacy claiming that the South did what it did because they saw that Abraham Lincoln was a despotic tyrant in the making, that he would subjugate the rights of the people and crush the states beneath the boot of the federal government. "Lincoln the Tyrant" is a popular trope, spurred onward by the usual grain of truth that gives such things their lasting appeal: Abraham Lincoln did, as President, suspend _habeas corpus_, raise an army without the consent of Congress, and, yes, ordered the forfeit of property on the part of Confederates (i.e. freed the slaves, though it's not often put like that in a criticism for obvious reasons). You see this repeated over and over in neo-Confederate and anarchocapitalist circles; for instance, a look through the titles of Thomas DiLorenzo's essays shows an obsession with writing extensive character attacks on President Lincoln, and while probably the most prolific, he's not the only one.
> 
> There are obvious problems with this approach, however.  The most glaring is that none of the things that Lincoln did that earn so much scorn could have been done outside the context of the Civil War.  In other words, far from predicting Lincoln's behavior and seceding to avoid it, the southern states were the catalyst for his behavior!  After all, had there been no insurrection, there would have been no need to arrest insurrectionists, raise an army to suppress the insurrection, and emancipate the slaves in Confederate-held territory as a war measure.  (More on the scope of the Emancipation Proclamation later.)
> 
> The other problem, of course, is that there is no shortage of primary source documents from the Confederate governments themselves stating exactly why they seceded.  I see no reason to disbelieve them, so without further ado, the various Declarations of the Causes of Secession from several Confederate states.  I have excerpted them for brevity's sake, but the complete text of each may be found at the links provided.
> 
> Texas: Declaration of the Causes of Secession
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union.
> 
> The government of the United States, by certain joint resolutions, bearing date the 1st day of March, in the year A.D. 1845, proposed to the Republic of Texas, then a free, sovereign and independent nation, the annexation of the latter to the former, as one of the co-equal states thereof,
> 
> The people of Texas, by deputies in convention assembled, on the fourth day of July of the same year, assented to and accepted said proposals and formed a constitution for the proposed State, upon which on the 29th day of December in the same year, said State was formally admitted into the Confederated Union.
> 
> Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association.
> 
> ...
> 
> When we advert to the course of individual non-slave-holding States, and that a majority of their citizens, our grievances assume far greater magnitude.
> 
> The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article *[the fugitive slave clause*] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation...
> 
> In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.
> 
> For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States.
> 
> By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress,
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's kind of what the majority does in a republic. Moving on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments.
> 
> They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a 'higher law' than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights.
> 
> They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.
> 
> They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offenses, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved.
> 
> ...
> 
> And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States.
> 
> In view of these and many other facts, it is meet that our own views should be distinctly proclaimed.
> 
> We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.
> 
> That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.
> 
> By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> South Carolina also chimes in, with this gem: South Carolina: Declaration of the Causes of Secession
> 
> 
> 
> Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union
> 
> The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.
> 
> And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.
> 
> ...
> 
> The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
> 
> *This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made.* The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.
> 
> The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.
> 
> The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.
> 
> The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
> 
> These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.
> 
> We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
> 
> ...
> 
> On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
> 
> ...
> 
> We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And most egregiously, Mississippi: Mississippi: Declaration of the Causes of Secession
> 
> 
> 
> A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
> 
> In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
> 
> Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
> 
> That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.
> 
> The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.
> 
> The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.
> 
> The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.
> 
> It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.
> 
> It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.
> 
> It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.
> 
> It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.
> 
> It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.
> 
> It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.
> 
> It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.
> 
> ...
> 
> Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.
> 
> Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even for those seceding states that did not publish official Declarations of Causes, we may learn much from their secession convention delegates.  For instance, this address of George Williamson, a Commissioner for the state of Louisiana, to the Texas secession convention, March 9, 1861.  Illustrates slavery as a secession aim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To the Hon. O.M. Roberts, President of the Convention of the People of Texas.
> 
> Mr. President and Gentlemen of the people of Texas.
> 
> I have the honor to address you as the commissioner of the people of Louisiana, accredited to your honorable body.
> 
> ...
> 
> The people of Louisiana were unwilling to endanger their liberties and property by submission to the despotism of a single tyrant, or the canting tyranny of pharisaical majorities. Insulted by the denial of her constitutional equality by the non-slaveholding States, outraged by their contemptuous rejection of proffered compromises, and convinced that she was illustrating the capacity of her people for self-government by withdrawing from a union that had failed, without fault of hers, to accomplish its purposes, she declared herself a free and independent State on the 26th day of January last. History affords no example of a people who changed their government for more just or substantial reasons. Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery, and of the free institutions of the founders of the Federal Union, bequeathed to their posterity. As her neighbor and sister State, she desires the hearty co-operation of Texas in the formation of a Southern Confederacy. She congratulates herself on the recent disposition evinced by your body to meet this wish, by the election of delegates to the Montgomery convention. Louisiana and Texas have the same language, laws and institutions. Between the citizens of each exists the most cordial social and commercial intercourse. The Red river and the Sabine form common highways for the transportation of their produce to the markets of the world. Texas affords to the commerce of Louisiana a large portion of her products, and in exchange the banks of New Orleans furnish Texas with her only paper circulating medium. Louisiana supplies to Texas a market for her surplus wheat, grain and stock; both States have large areas of fertile, uncultivated lands, peculiarly adapted to slave labor; and *they are both so deeply interested in African slavery that it may be said to be absolutely necessary to their existence, and is the keystone to the arch of their prosperity.* ...
> 
> The people of Louisiana would consider it a most fatal blow to African slavery, if Texas either did not secede or having seceded should not join her destinies to theirs in a Southern Confederacy. If she remains in the union the abolitionists would continue their work of incendiarism and murder. Emigrant aid societies would arm with Sharp's rifles predatory bands to infest her northern borders. The Federal Government would mock at her calamity in accepting the recent bribes in the army bill and Pacific railroad bill, and with abolition treachery would leave her unprotected frontier to the murderous inroads of hostile savages. Experience justifies these expectations. A professedly friendly federal administration gave Texas no substantial protection against the Indians or abolitionists, and what must she look for from an administration avowedly inimical and supported by no vote within her borders. Promises won from the timid and faithless are poor hostages of good faith. As a separate republic, Louisiana remembers too well the whisperings of European diplomacy for the abolition of slavery in the times of annexation not to be apprehensive of bolder demonstrations from the same quarter and the North in this country. The people of the slaveholding States are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery. The isolation of any one of them from the others would make her a theatre for abolition emissaries from the North and from Europe. Her existence would be one of constant peril to herself and of imminent danger to other neighboring slave-holding communities. A decent respect for the opinions and interests of the Gulf States seems to indicate that Texas should co-operate with them. I am authorized to say to your honorable body that Louisiana does not expect any beneficial result from the peace conference now assembled at Washington. She is unwilling that her action should depend on the border States. Her interests are identical with Texas and the seceding States. With them she will at present co-operate, hoping and believing in his own good time God will awaken the people of the border States to the vanity of asking for, or depending upon, guarantees or compromises wrung from a people whose consciences are too sublimated to be bound by that sacred compact, the constitution of the late United States. That constitution the Southern States have never violated, and taking it as the basis of our new government we hope to form a slave-holding confederacy that will secure to us and our remotest posterity the great blessings its authors designed in the Federal Union. With the social balance wheel of slavery to regulate its machinery, we may fondly indulge the hope that our Southern government will be perpetual.
> 
> Geo. Williamson
> Commissioner of the State of Louisiana
> City of Austin Feby 11th 1861.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To hear from yet another Deep South state, a speech of E.S. Dargan to the Secession Convention of Alabama, January 11, 1861.
> 
> 
> 
> I wish, Mr. President, to express the feelings with which I vote for the secession of Alabama from the Government of the United States; and to state, in a few words, the reasons that impel me to this act.
> 
> I feel impelled, Mr. President, to vote for this Ordinance by an overruling necessity. Years ago I was convinced that the Southern States would be compelled either to separate from the North, by dissolving the Federal Government, or they would be compelled to abolish the institution of African Slavery. This, in my judgment, was the only alternative; and I foresaw that the South would be compelled, at some day, to make her selection. The day is now come, and Alabama must make her selection, either to secede from the Union, and assume the position of a sovereign, independent State, or she must submit to a system of policy on the part of the Federal Government that, in a short time, will compel her to abolish African Slavery.
> 
> Mr. President, if pecuniary loss alone were involved in the abolition of slavery, I should hesitate long before I would give the vote I now intend to give. If the destruction of slavery entailed on us poverty alone, I could bear it, for I have seen poverty and felt its sting. But poverty, Mr. President, would be one of the least of the evils that would befall us from the abolition of African slavery. There are now in the slaveholding States over four millions of slaves; dissolve the relation of master and slave, and what, I ask, would become of that race? To remove them from amongst us is impossible. History gives us no account of the exodus of such a number of persons. We neither have a place to which to remove them, nor the means of such removal. They therefore must remain with us; and if the relation of master and slave be dissolved, and our slaves turned loose amongst us without restraint, they would either be destroyed by our own hands - the hands to which they look, and look with confidence, for protection - or we ourselves would become demoralized and degraded. *The former result would take place, and we ourselves would become the executioners of our own slaves.* To this extent would the policy of our Northern enemies drive us; and thus would we not only be reduced to poverty, but what is still worse, we should be driven to crime, to the commission of sin; and we must, therefore, this day elect between the Government formed by our fathers (the whole spirit of which has been perverted), and POVERTY AND CRIME! This being the alternative, I cannot hesitate for a moment what my duty is. I must separate from the Government of my fathers, the one under which I have lived, and under which I wished to die. But I must do my duty to my country and my fellow beings; and humanity, in my judgment, demands that Alabama should separate herself from the Government of the United States.
> 
> If I am wrong in this responsible act, I hope my God may forgive me; for I am not actuated, as I think, from any motive save that of justice and philanthropy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Abolition would *force them to commit murder, nay, genocide* in his view, because that would be better than being "degraded" by having free blacks in their midst.
> 
> And to put the final nail in the coffin, we go to the Vice President of the Confederate States, speaking of the new Confederate Constitution. Alexander H. Stephens: Cornerstone Address
> 
> 
> 
> March 21, 1861
> We are in the midst of one of the greatest epochs in our history. The last ninety days will mark one of the most memorable eras in the history of modern civilization.
> 
> ...
> 
> But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other-though last, not least: the new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions-African slavery as it exists among us-the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. *This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.* Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the Constitution, was the prevailing idea at the time. The Constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly used against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it-when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."
> 
> Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; *its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.* This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, *based upon* this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It is so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North who still cling to these errors with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind; from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is, forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics: their conclusions are right if their premises are. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights, with the white man.... I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the Northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery; that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle-a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of man. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds we should succeed, and that he and his associates in their crusade against our institutions would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as well as in physics and mechanics, I admitted, but told him it was he and those acting with him who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.
> 
> In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.
> 
> As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are, and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo-it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not therefore look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first Government ever instituted upon principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many Governments have been founded upon the principles of certain classes; but the classes thus enslaved, were of the same race, and in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws. The negro by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, [note: A reference to Genesis, 9:20-27, which was used as a justification for slavery] is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite-then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is the best, not only for the superior but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances or to question them. For His own purposes He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made "one star to differ from another in glory."
> 
> The great objects of humanity are best attained, when conformed to his laws and degrees, in the formation of Governments as well as in all things else. Our Confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders "is become the chief stone of the corner" in our new edifice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And just as a reminder of what change in the Confederate Constitution he referred to:
> 
> 
> 
> Constitution of the Confederate States said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Parts in red are relevant. The section of the Texas Declaration in blue admits that Texas surrendered her separate national character.
> 
> I should think that this lays to rest claims that the southern states were benevolently attempting to avoid general oppression; they rather acted in order to keep a large segment of their own populations oppressed.
> 
> Ah, but regardless of their reasons, moral or immoral, it was the right of the states to end the compact of the Constitution, cries out the Libertarian circle!  It was never the intention of the Founders to forever bind the states against their wills, and they intentionally left the door open to secession by not explicitly banning it in the Constitution!  Lincoln's actions, therefore, forever and improperly removed a natural right of the states, a safeguard against future tyranny.
> 
> Well, no.  Let's look at the intentions of the Founders.  Secession did indeed occur to them; after all, the Hartford Convention at which a minority of New England delegates advocated secession had happened during their lifetimes and many were still alive during the Nullification Crisis of the 1830s.  There are therefore many writings from several Founding Fathers to draw from.  At random, let's start with James Madison.  From this letter to William Rives.
> 
> 
> 
> The milliners it appears, endeavor to shelter themselves under a distinction between a delegation and a surrender of powers. But if the powers be attributes of sovereignty & nationality & the grant of them be perpetual, *as is necessarily implied*, where not otherwise expressed, *sovereignty & nationality according to the extent of the grant are effectually transferred by it*, and a dispute about the name, is but a battle of words. The practical result is not indeed left to argument or inference. *The words of the Constitution are explicit that the Constitution & laws of the U. S. shall be supreme over the Constitution & laws of the several States, supreme in their exposition and execution as well as in their authority. Without a supremacy in those respects it would be like a scabbard in the hand of a soldier without a sword in it. The imagination itself is startled at the idea of twenty four independent expounders of a rule that cannot exist, but in a meaning and operation, the same for all.*
> 
> The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not only the question of nullification, but the more formidable one of secession. It is asked whether a State by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the Union, may not of right withdraw from it at will. As this is a simple question whether a State, more than an individual, has a right to violate its engagements, it would seem that it might be safely left to answer itself. But the countenance given to the claim shows that it cannot be so lightly dismissed. The natural feelings which laudably attach the people composing a State, to its authority and importance, are at present too much excited by the unnatural feelings, with which they have been inspired agst their brethren of other States, not to expose them, to the danger of being misled into *erroneous views of the nature of the Union* and the interest they have in it. One thing at least seems to be too clear to be questioned, that whilst a State remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution & laws of the Union. In the event of an actual secession without the Consent of the Co States, the course to be pursued by these involves questions painful in the discussion of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Madison actually considered the idea of unilateral secession so preposterous that until it actually came up when South Carolina first threatened it he felt there was no need to even mention it, and was astonished that he should have to.  He also references the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution as proof positive that the states had no such ability, something that modern neo-Confederates tend to deny.  Given that he wrote the thing, I should think I trust Madison's interpretation of it. Also note that he asserts that sovereignty and nationality lay with the United States, not the individual states.
> 
> And now for the thoughts of the man commonly referred to as the father of our country, George Washington, chairman of the Constitutional Convention and first President.  This is from his Circular to the States.
> 
> 
> 
> There are four things, which I humbly conceive, are essential to the well being, I may even venture to say, to the existence of the United States as an Independent Power:
> 
> 1st. An *indissoluble Union of the States* under one Federal Head.
> 
> 2dly. A Sacred regard to Public Justice.
> 
> 3dly. The adoption of a proper Peace Establishment, and
> 
> 4thly. The prevalence of that pacific and friendly Disposition, among the People of the United States, which will induce them to forget their local prejudices and policies, to make those mutual concessions which are requisite to the general prosperity, and in some instances, to sacrifice their individual advantages to the interest of the Community.
> 
> ...
> 
> Under the first head, altho' it may not be necessary or proper for me in this place to enter into a particular disquisition of the principles of the Union, and to take up the great question which has been frequently agitated, whether it be expedient and requisite for the States to delegate a larger proportion of Power to Congress, or not, Yet it will be a part of my duty, and that of every true Patriot, to assert without reserve, and to insist upon the following positions, That unless the States will suffer Congress to exercise those prerogatives, they are undoubtedly invested with by the Constitution, every thing must very rapidly tend to Anarchy and confusion, That it is indispensable to the happiness of the individual States, that there should be lodged somewhere, a Supreme Power to regulate and govern the general concerns of the Confederated Republic, without which the Union cannot be of long duration. That there must be a faithful and pointed compliance on the part of every State, with the late proposals and demands of Congress, or the most fatal consequences will ensue, *That whatever measures have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or contribute to violate or lessen the Sovereign Authority, ought to be considered as hostile to the Liberty and Independency of America, and the Authors of them treated accordingly*, and lastly, that unless we can be enabled by the concurrence of the States, to participate of the fruits of the Revolution, and enjoy the essential benefits of Civil Society, under a form of Government so free and uncorrupted, so happily guarded against the danger of oppression, as has been devised and adopted by the Articles of Confederation, it will be a subject of regret, that so much blood and treasure have been lavished for no purpose, that so many sufferings have been encountered without a compensation, and that so many sacrifices have been made in vain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ouch.  That one's got to sting, especially since many neo-Confederates actually hold Washington as a hero.  There was in fact a portrait of him dominating the front wall of the hall in Montgomery where the Confederate Constitution was drawn up.
> 
> But these are the opinions of men.  What does that Supreme Law of the Land say, actually?  Often the Tenth Amendment is cited as a grant of the power to break up the Union.  That Amendment:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States Constitution said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But this explicitly applies to powers not delegated to the United States.  So let's see what is.
> 
> 
> 
> United States Constitution said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, *suppress Insurrections* and repel Invasions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Insurrection and rebellion are obviously illegal; otherwise there would be no provision for suppressing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States Constitution said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, if rebellion is legal, why the injunction against it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States Constitution said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, *keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War*, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, if you need the consent of Congress to raise an army, then it would seem that just leaving would be out; after all, if you can just leave, why bother having such a restriction?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States Constitution said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treason against the United States, shall consist only in *levying War against them*, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaks for itself, I think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States Constitution said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory* or other Property belonging to the United States; and *nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States*, or of any particular State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This one's the kicker.  When taken in the context of the Supremacy Clause, we see that the states cannot violate the territorial sovereignty of the United States.  Secession is such a violation.  Here is that Clause, which is the one Madison referred to in his letter to Senator Rives:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States Constitution said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, *shall be the supreme Law of the Land*; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, *any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where is the right to secede?  I'm certainly not seeing it.  Incidentally, if that was such a big deal to the Confederate States, you would think they would have seen fit to include it in their own constitution.  They did not.  In fact, the only change they made which affects the ability of states to leave their union is this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confederate Constitution said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a *permanent federal government*, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So much for the right of secession.
> 
> Now, none of this is to say that the North was all sweetness and light.  It was not. While slavery was the proximate cause of the initial secessions, and therefore the ultimate cause of the war, freeing the slaves was not the North's motive in prosecuting the war. Rather, the North was motivated primarily to preserve the Union; while Lincoln was personally an abolitionist, he did not believe it within his power as President to free the slaves. (Ironic, since he did take several powers normally reserved for Congress - namely, suspension of _habeus corpus_ and calling out the militia to suppress insurrection - upon himself in the interim between his inauguration and Congress coming to session.)
> 
> The Emancipation Proclamation was indeed a great step, but it was first and foremost a war measure.  Slave states which did not secede from the Union were permitted to keep their slaves until the passage of the 13th Amendment.  In fact, prior to the Proclamation, Lincoln rescinded orders by Generals John Frémont and David Hunter freeing the slaves in areas of the Confederacy they had captured; he dismissed Frémont when the general refused the President's orders to reverse his decision.
> 
> It was political reality that making the war about slavery would likely have cost Lincoln the war (Ulysses S. Grant said he would resign if he thought the war's objective was to free the slaves, and the border states would likely have simply seceded themselves), but that doesn't change the fact that the Union's prosecution of the war was not to free the slaves; it just makes it more excusable.
> 
> However, what is not excusable is the South's behavior prior to and during the Civil War. War would not have happened without secession. The initial secessions were without doubt motivated by a desire to maintain and expand chattel slavery (secessions after Lincoln took office were motivated by an unwillingness to contribute troops to fight the South, but again, without slavery none of it would have happened), and that is what matters to the causes of the war.
Click to expand...


interesting analysis. i will ponder it. you are absolutely correct about insurrection, treason, and rebellion being illegal. that is why the 2nd amendment was never intended to create a means of fighting the government.


----------



## Rogue 9

whitehall said:


> Lincoln seems to be more than a mortal human in the minds of the slobbering elitist low information literary geniuses in the last hundred and fifty years but he couldn't keep the Union together as president. With all the slick comments and the alleged political skill, Lincoln couldn't hold the freaking Country together. If Lincoln did the right thing and declined to run for a second term the Union would have been preserved for at least another four years and slavery would have faded away with the industrial revolution.


I believe you mean James Buchanan, sir.


----------



## Rotagilla

Rogue 9 said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was far more than a slavery issue...........The deep divisions had been going on many issues way before it went to blows................Mostly on the South not having a voice..............The North had the large population and were Industrial, while the South relied on farming..........aka cotton..........with a much smaller population.............the South basically had no chance whatsoever in the House of Representatives...........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and that larger population was responsible for Lincoln's election as an entirely regional candidate in a three way race. Lincoln, Seward and Fremont were representing big northern businesses and lobbying for huge Federal subsidies for railroads and protectionist tariffs for the financial interests the Republican Party was formed to represent, and of course wanted to pass the costs burdens off mostly on the Southern states, for 'national improvements' they wouldn't benefit from at all economically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please.  In 1860 the South accounted for 75% of U.S. exports, all the slaves in the South were more monetarily valuable than all the railroads and Northern industry combined, and the tariff was at its lowest level since 1816.  The Slave Power had _enormous_ economic power, since free labor tends to produce gigantic profits.  Of course, then you have other problems.
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .and the North imposed laws that pissed off the South.  Secession was talked about in 1820..............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, in 1828, over the same reasons, higher taxes and tariffs that would fall very unequally on southerners. Before that secession was often a cry; the New England states threatened to secede several times before, and during, the War of 1812 for the same reasons; they felt *they* were carrying more than their share of the Federal tax burdens at the time, too. They were sniveling at the time that the Federal spending benefitted Virginia and the mid-Atlantic states instead of their own states.
> 
> We already know abolitionists didn't make up a majority of the Republican Party, and we already know the North had slave states, and we already know what the Republican Congresses and Senators wanted by what bills they concentrated on first, and none of them were about ' ending slavery n stuff'. Cherry pick  cites from grandiose, pompous, and self-serving political speeches all you want, they mean little or nothing about the true motivations of those making the laws, any more than they mean anything today; it was about money and getting rid of political obstacles to loot the Federal Treasury and carry pork back home, and get bribes from big business.
> 
> Need more evidence of Republican motivations? See the blatant corruption of the Reconstruction farce, the Black Codes in the North that prevented blacks from migrating to northern states, including Lincoln's own Illinois, after the war, along with the corruption and cronyism during the war itself in supplying the Federal armies, in the Johnson and Grant adminstrations. Also see Lincoln going against his own Cabinet in deliberately provoking the war over Fort Sumter, with only his Postmaster General appointee supporting that illegal action, the rest being opposed, including General Winfield Scott and Seward himself being opposed to that. Lincoln was going to go to war, no matter what; it was the only way to remove southern political opposition to the railroad bills, massive tariff increases, and 'Homestead Act' scams to support the railroads subsidies.
> 
> The war was over two divergent sets of wealthy financial interests and the political power exerted by those interests, and nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Reconstruction farce was overseen by Andrew Johnson, a Democrat.  You know, since Lincoln was shot and all.  Which was really too bad for the South; Lincoln openly favored a conciliatory policy and had the influence with Congress to get one; Johnson didn't and got run over by Congress.
> 
> "Provoking the war over Fort Sumter," is a laugh riot; there was already a war at that point.  That's kind of what it is when you bombard forts into submission.
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, like I'm about to waste my time arguing with a full blown kookanoodle.
> 
> From your website:
> 
> *'"The government for the Confederate States of America never surrendered to the United States of America and still exist in a state of forced exile. The C.S.A and its Citizens are currently under active occupation by a United States imposed national government system."*
> 
> **
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you will not discuss the legal issue with me, Paperview, you know you would lose. This will be a great disappointment  to your cheerleader Mr. STARKEY, all his hopes were tied up in you. Now YOUR U.S. Is suppose to be a nation of laws, yet we find your brothers unable to cite the law I have requested, as for you, you will need to do the same, and while you are at it please produce the documents wherein our CSA government was surrendered to YOUR U.S. Or a peace treaty signed between YOUR USA and OUR CSA. Without such documents your case is lost, now who really is the Kook here? A Nation of laws? Cite those laws, produce those documents, I am busy this week, therefore I give you until Friday 9 pm to produce your evidence of fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's cute.  What makes you think you're in any position to make demands?  Regardless, one doesn't make treaties with defeated rebels.  The Confederate States is a fictional entity, recognized by no country in the world nor by most of its own population - after all, I seriously doubt the slaves were in favor, to say nothing of the large Unionist pockets in Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama.
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> The south tried to peacefully and legally withdraw from the union.
> The south offered to pay for all federal installations on our property and to pay our share of the national debt at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Peacefully and legally my ass.  Tell Captain McGowan of the _Star of the West _or Major Anderson commanding Fort Sumter how peaceful that cannon fire was.
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lying POS lincoln wanted war, though.
> The declaration of independence...which lincoln supported...says;
> 
> _When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
> 
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, *Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.*_
> 
> Declaration of Independence
> 1776
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it also says - directly after where you stopped quoting, interestingly enough; I'm sure that was coincidental -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Declaration of Independence said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes*; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a *long train* of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--*Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies*; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A single Presidential election is quite transient, it's hard to argue Lincoln subjected the Slave Power to a "long train" of anything before he'd even been inaugurated, and the Slave Power certainly exhibited nothing resembling patient sufferance.  You will find no refuge for your cause in the Declaration.
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lying POS lincoln also said;
> _*Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can may revolutionize and make their own of so many of the territory as they inhabit."
> 
> 
> Abraham Lincoln
> Jan 12, 1848*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah.  But the Slave Power clearly didn't have the power.  QED.
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> In his first inaugural address he also said;
> 
> _Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that --
> 
> I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
> 
> Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
> 
> Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes._
> 
> 
> So the southerners who wanted to peacefully withdraw are called "traitors"....but that's just what the british called the colonists who wanted to peacefully separate from england...
> 
> Laugh...call names...make fun...mock...whatever you need to make yourself feel better...but southerners aren't over being invaded and having her citizens murdered, property burned, stolen or destroyed, infrastructure ruined any more than negroes are "over" slavery.
> 
> yet the north gloats and cheers the war criminal sherman and his "march to the sea"...it's ok...these things will all be corrected in time. This country won't last..and just like other nations that collapse in violence, old grudges will be resolved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Make your threats, they mean nothing to me.  Slavery was in no danger of being abolished in 1860 - the Slave Power brought that upon itself when it plunged the country into war when it was not allowed to dictate slavery upon territories that did not want it.  Fanaticism for slavery expansion elected Lincoln - he would not have succeeded if the Deep South hadn't walked out of the Democratic National Convention because it refused to adopt a platform plank guaranteeing slavery in the territories and nominated Breckinridge to undermine Stephen Douglas.  Really that was insane of them; Douglas was a true believer in Manifest Destiny ideology, and would gladly have conquered and made slave states of Cuba and as many Central American countries as he could lay the Army on.  The South chose rebellion and war; had they abided by the electoral process as they were Constitutionally obliged to do, slavery would have persevered for decades.  It was the war, a war fought by the Slave Power to expand slavery, that turned public sentiment in favor of abolition.
> 
> Some things are worth war; that was one of them.  In short:
Click to expand...


The south tried to peacefully withdraw and go about our business...The lying POS lincoln wanted his war and sent troops to invade. Patriots always try to repel invaders.Take 1776 for instance...your double standard and anti south bias is glaringly obvious.
You try to parse words and make up our own reality...I've posted the actual words of people involved at the time..not some message board propaganda...

lincoln then allowed his generals to wage war on civilians..murder, destruction of their property, businesses and infrastructure....and you guys are so proud of your murderous heritage and tell lies about and mock southerners.
It's like if your wife asks for a divorce you think it would be ok to beat her up.

Hell, I suppose you're also ok with the u.s. nuking civilians..... twice..... in WWII. "murica..fuck yeah!"

Save all you excuse making and parsing of words. lincoln said what he said...the declaration of independence says what it says...type a wall of text and equivocations...try to re interpret history so it makes you feel better....you can't erase what was said. 

Here let me refresh your memory with some real history...not your filtered, revisionist re interpretations;
_

When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —*That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.*_


Even lincoln thought the declaration of independence was a good idea...until he decided later to invade the south for exercising their legal rights to withdraw from the union.
Situational ethics.


*Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,— most sacred right—a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory as they inhabit.
More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones.

A. Lincoln*
in Congress 1848


Here's what the lying POS said in his first inaugural address

* 

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that by the accession of a Republican Administration, their property, and their peace, and personal security, are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed, and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And more than this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves, and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:*

* Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."*

Now..if you want to continue the discussion based on what was actually said, proceed..if you just want a soapbox to chirp your anti southern anti democratic position from, just say so...don't try to corrupt history..People can read these words..you aren't fooling any of them.
Funny...only northerners think the war of northern aggression was right and proper...

It's ok, though..past wrongs will be corrected. 
Collapse, partitioning and reconstruction are the next 2 phases this nation will go through....


----------



## paperview

Rotagilla said:


> _..._
> ....


I so tire of repeating myself.

Why Did The South Secede Page 5 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Why Did The South Secede Page 5 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

One of your gems from that thread:





Rotagilla said:


> ...
> The industrial revolution was occurring and slaves were impractical and more trouble than they were worth. That's a fact..



lol.


Then the one where you went on to say how the _"south didn't want to Import anymore"_ slaves in 1860...
 That was a real knee slapper. 

Or how that rip roarin' 1850 cotton harvester you plucked from wiki was makin' slavery "a fading, inefficient and destructive practice and everyone knew it at the time."

Anyone want to read a Rigatoni-flavored White supremacist make a fool of himself, that thread is quite the funz.


----------



## paperview

whitehall said:


> Lincoln seems to be more than a mortal human in the minds of the slobbering elitist low information literary geniuses in the last hundred and fifty years but he couldn't keep the Union together as president. With all the slick comments and the alleged political skill, Lincoln couldn't hold the freaking Country together. If Lincoln did the right thing and declined to run for a second term the Union would have been preserved for at least another four years and slavery would have faded away with the industrial revolution.


What in the hell??


----------



## James Everett

Rogue 9 said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue9,
> First you asked....
> *"I'm curious about an apparent contradiction in your position, however. You say that if the Constitution was established by the people, then it is only binding on the people then living and can have no continuity of government. Why, then, do the states in your view? What makes them so special that they endure while a government established by the People supposedly does not?"*
> The State governments only exist by the voluntary accession of new citizens as they come of age. If however, the U.S. CONstitution is a contract between "We the people" then it died with those who agreed to that contract. We see that the people at the age of consent in the Southern States, as in Tennessee the vote was put to the people of the State, they chose to exit the union, hence that contract between their ancestors who consented to it when Tennessee became a member State in the union, was not binding on them. If however the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution was a treaty between States, then its accession is by each member State respectively, and as the Treaty, gave specifically enumerated powers to the U.S. (THE STATES COLLECTIVELY), and RESERVED all others to themselves, then YOU MUST CITE THE LAW, ARTICLE WITHIN THE TREATY/CONstitution,OR AN AMENDMENT THEREOF WHICH MAKES SECESSION AN UNLAWFUL OR ILLEGAL ACT. THE STATES RETAINED EVERY RIGHT OF SOVEREIGNTY THAT THEY DID NOT EXCLUSIVELY DELEGATE TO THE UNITED STATES_. _*YOU MUST CITE THE POWER THAT THEY DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES TO HOLD THEM AGAINST THEIR WILL, OTHERWISE THE POWER TO EXIT THE UNION WAS RETAINED BY EACH STATE INDIVIDUALLY.*
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, he's figured out smileys.  Cute.
> 
> The judgment of the People of the United States, as a whole, binds the states individually.  The Constitution forms a government, not a treaty organization or a contract; it was conceived as such and presented as such when it was voted upon by the people.  That you continue to insist the opposite does not make it so. The United States as a whole created the Constitution, and only the United States as a whole can unmake it.  I have already cited Article IV multiple times; that you cannot read plain English is not my problem.
> 
> Incidentally, the secession referendum in Tennessee was rigged, twice, and the East Tennessee Convention voted overwhelmingly to break away afterwards, but was denied and repaid for their loyalty with military occupation by the rebels. Evidently the Slave Power was not concerned with principle; it was only okay when they did it.
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears it was Starky who posted it, I get you Yankees Confused, as you all make the same pathetic losing Arguments.
> Now, Rogue9, again read what the States agreed to in the Articles...
> .*"nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."*
> Were the alterations to the Articles via the 1787/1789 CONstitution CONFIRMED by each State's legislature?
> You state that....
> *"The legislatures then called for the special election of conventions specifically for ratification (or not), the act of which signals agreement with the dictates of the conventions - which is what happened."
> 
> Therefore the State legislature agreed first with the Philadelphia conventions proposal and then with the State their convention, hence were party to the TREATY, They could have refused, and the people, would not have been allowed to elect delegates to attend a convention within their State.
> In other words the State legislatures had the AUTHORITY to NOT allow a convention to take place within their State. The 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution had to have the blessing of each States legislature, hence they were party to it, they each sent delegates to the Philadelphia Convention, and their delegates did debate and create the TREATY to present FIRST to each of their State legislatures, then it was each States legislature that allowed a State convention. The State legislatures agreed first, and then allowed the people of their respective States to elect delegates to a convention. In other words it was a treaty agreed to by the State legislatures, and then those State legislatures gave voice through elected delegates.
> AGAIN......According to international law....
> "Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties. As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states
> When a state withdraws from a multi-lateral treaty, that treaty will still otherwise remain in force among the other parties, unless, of course, otherwise should or could be interpreted as agreed upon between the remaining states parties to the treaty."
> I hope that I have been able to educate you concerning YOUR U.S. CONstitution these past couple of days. I will likely not be available to help you again until next weekend.
> If you are able, please try and come up with some other alterations of definitions to benefit your case, it is quite amusing witnessing your dancing.......*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you see the signatures of the state governors at the bottom of the Constitution?  The bills from their legislatures?  The states surrendered their say in the matter to the people, and rightly so.  The Articles government _was not working_; that was the entire point of the Convention in the first place.
> 
> Incidentally, I grow tired of "Yankee."  I'm not from New England, and several of my maternal ancestors served in the 45th Alabama Infantry, CSA.  They were right bastards, too; I've read the journals and letters.  One need not be a Yankee to see what a huge pile of crap the Slave Power was selling.
Click to expand...


YankeeROGUE9,
I do not see the names of every American citizen at the bottom of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution either. If as I stated it was not approved by the States legislatures then it was done in violation of Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation. The U.S. Claims to be a nation of laws, if this articles was violated then you have a _*de facto*_ government. Article XIII did not allow for the whole of the people to alter one word in the Articles of Confederation, it is specific....
*"nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.*

Do you see the signatures of the state governors at the bottom of the Constitution?  The bills from their legislatures?
YANKEE Rogue9,
You state
*"The Articles government was not working; that was the entire point of the Convention in the first place. "
The Articles were in place for six years, and were actually amendable via the confirmation of alterations by each State legislature. They were not working ONLY for the intentions of the Nationalists that you YANKEES have such a love affair with, who wanted a government NOT of liberty for the people, but a government of power granduer and splendor to rival that of England's monarchy, this is why YOUR U.S. is in a perpetual state of war, and hegemony.  The 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution did NOT work as we see it took one of history's bloodiest wars to enforce its TYRANNY, (LINCOLN'S REBELLION VIA THE NORTHS VIOLATION OF THE LAWFUL AUTHORITY OF THE TENTH AMENDMENT) . It is still NOT working for the purpose of Liberty, it is working however to the purpose of tyranny. As for East Tennessee, when Your Lincoln called for troops to make war on the Southern State, East Tennessee rejected the union at that point. You dont know spit about Tennessee, YANKEE. I DO!  My family has been here since it was a wilderness. Again, the United States was a Confederacy of States under the Articles, there was NO national aspect. The whole of the People were NOT party to it, and could NOT have legally altered one word in it. The 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution had to be a treaty, otherwise it is a de facto government in violation of the LAW under the Articles. As far as Admiralty law, and common law,The passport of such read differently one states that the individual is a U.S. Citizen, the other an American citizen. You can google and post contradiction all you want, however, you as I have clearly witnessed in our exchanges, have little understanding of law, or history. Now I have a question for you...
Have you settled on a definition for YOUR CONstitution that works for you? Once you claimed it to be a compact, and when I gave you the proper definition, you then claimed it to be a charter, then I gave you that definition. What is it to become in your feeble mind next in order to fit your feeble position?
And last but in NO way least, YOU CANNOT WIN THIS DEBATE, UNTIL YOU CAN CITE THE LAW, ARTICLE WITHIN YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, THAT STATES THAT SECESSION IS AN ILLEGAL, OR UNLAWFUL ACT. YOU CONTINUE TO AVOID THE ONLY THING THAT CAN WIN THE DEBATE FOR YOU. CITE THE LAW YANKEE BOY!!!!*


----------



## James Everett

paperview said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln seems to be more than a mortal human in the minds of the slobbering elitist low information literary geniuses in the last hundred and fifty years but he couldn't keep the Union together as president. With all the slick comments and the alleged political skill, Lincoln couldn't hold the freaking Country together. If Lincoln did the right thing and declined to run for a second term the Union would have been preserved for at least another four years and slavery would have faded away with the industrial revolution.
> 
> 
> 
> What in the hell??
Click to expand...




paperview said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln seems to be more than a mortal human in the minds of the slobbering elitist low information literary geniuses in the last hundred and fifty years but he couldn't keep the Union together as president. With all the slick comments and the alleged political skill, Lincoln couldn't hold the freaking Country together. If Lincoln did the right thing and declined to run for a second term the Union would have been preserved for at least another four years and slavery would have faded away with the industrial revolution.
> 
> 
> 
> What in the hell??
Click to expand...

Hey, PAPERVIEW....
*CITE THE LAW, ARTICLE WITHIN YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, THAT STATES THAT SECESSION IS AN ILLEGAL, OR UNLAWFUL ACT. YOU CONTINUE TO AVOID THE ONLY THING THAT CAN WIN THE DEBATE FOR YOU. CITE THE LAW.  Your deadline is getting closer. *
*paperviem, I also see that you are still harping about slavery, but you do NOT get to hold any moral high ground, as it was YOUR U.S. that continued its slaughter of the Native American Indian even after 1865. You murder sally ,and scream John murdered Joe, therefore you think you are somehow blood free? Now thats a knee slapper!!!!
*


----------



## James Everett

paperview said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln seems to be more than a mortal human in the minds of the slobbering elitist low information literary geniuses in the last hundred and fifty years but he couldn't keep the Union together as president. With all the slick comments and the alleged political skill, Lincoln couldn't hold the freaking Country together. If Lincoln did the right thing and declined to run for a second term the Union would have been preserved for at least another four years and slavery would have faded away with the industrial revolution.
> 
> 
> 
> What in the hell??
Click to expand...

Paperview,
You YANKEES just don't get it do you?
The issue is not slavery, Slavery was legal in YOUR U.S. in 1860. The issue is the legality of secession....
*CITE THE LAW, ARTICLE WITHIN YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, THAT STATES THAT SECESSION IS AN ILLEGAL, OR UNLAWFUL ACT. *
*The U.S. is suppose to be a nation of laws, was slavery illegal in the U.S. in 1860?
Was secession illegal in 1860/1861?
CITE THE LAW, ARTICLE WITHIN YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, THAT STATES THAT SECESSION IS AN ILLEGAL, OR UNLAWFUL ACT.
You can attempt to divert by screaming SLAVERY and pointing your crooked South all you want, however it is simply a dog that wont hunt. The dead line still gets closer by the hour....Cite the law.*


----------



## paperview

I'm not going to cite shit for you.
You have proven yourself to be a mental patient.

I'm not going to waste my time on your nonsense anymore than I would a birther, or a man convinced he's been abducted by aliens or Billy Bob from Appletown Street Hospital who thinks he's Napoleon and carries on in the side yard barking military orders at passers -by in a silly tri-pointed hat. 

Sorry bub.  Not interested in enabling your obvious illness.


----------



## James Everett

So, toiletpapershitview, you just admitted that you cannot cite the law, YOU YANKEE SHIT lose. You are nothing more than a village idiot! Just as every other nationalist you cannot defend against the truth so you start slinging insults. Well back at ya. You came with nothing and you left with nothing, your poor ole number one cheerleader made out like you would be a real challenge. All I got was an 8 year old child. Come on back if you ever wanna try again squirt!!!!!


----------



## James Everett

Toiletpaperview, says mommy, mommy, that mean ole James Everett made me look like a fool, make him stop!!!!! Waaaa Waaa!!!!!!!


----------



## James Everett

Now, p


paperview said:


> I'm not going to cite shit for you.
> You have proven yourself to be a mental patient.
> 
> I'm not going to waste my time on your nonsense anymore than I would a birther, or a man convinced he's been abducted by aliens or Billy Bob from Appletown Street Hospital who thinks he's Napoleon and carries on in the side yard barking military orders at passers -by in a silly tri-pointed hat.
> 
> Sorry bub.  Not interested in enabling your obvious illness.


Now, Paperview, do you get the example of how childish and pathetic you come across using petty insults and childish cartoons? Such do not win debate, such only reveal you low character. The fact is, you, Rogue9, or any other Yankee has ever had a chance, in this discussion. A question is not resolved by violence or disregard of law, Lincoln and his Northern cronies were in rebellion to the lawful authority of their 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutions tenth amendment. You cannot cite the law that states that secession was unlawful, or illegal, that's the truth of it.


----------



## oldfart

paperview said:


> I'm not going to cite shit for you.
> You have proven yourself to be a mental patient.
> 
> I'm not going to waste my time on your nonsense anymore than I would a birther, or a man convinced he's been abducted by aliens or Billy Bob from Appletown Street Hospital who thinks he's Napoleon and carries on in the side yard barking military orders at passers -by in a silly tri-pointed hat.
> 
> Sorry bub.  Not interested in enabling your obvious illness.



It was obvious about 100 posts ago that Everett was a troll and by now the thread has been thoroughly hijacked.  I suggest everyone stop feeding the troll, and if this thread dies, it's all good.  Or, of course, we could all ignore Everett and carry on a discussion on the OP.   

P.S.  Has anyone else read Russell McClintock's excellent "Lincoln and the Decision for War"? Best work on the to date on the subject not of the causes of the Civil War, but of the politics of the "interregnum" of the last days of the Buchanan administration and the peace efforts from the election campaign through the inauguration and first months of the Lincoln administration.


----------



## James Everett

Oh? Well now, that's rich, because I was invited here by one of your own,
 ( Mr. Woodrow, Major), now I become a troll in your mind because not one of you can sucessfully defend your position? How childishly pathetic. Suck it up Paperview, take your lose like a man.


----------



## James Everett

Good grief, you Yankees were given a deadline of9pm Friday to successfully defend your position by simply citing the law that make secession an illegal act, which you will be unable to do at which time my work here will be finished. That's only three days away. No one need respond further because you were defeated when I first made the challenge.


----------



## Rotagilla

paperview said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> _..._
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> I so tire of repeating myself.
> 
> Why Did The South Secede Page 5 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Why Did The South Secede Page 5 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> One of your gems from that thread:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> The industrial revolution was occurring and slaves were impractical and more trouble than they were worth. That's a fact..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol.
> 
> 
> Then the one where you went on to say how the _"south didn't want to Import anymore"_ slaves in 1860...
> That was a real knee slapper.
> 
> Or how that rip roarin' 1850 cotton harvester you plucked from wiki was makin' slavery "a fading, inefficient and destructive practice and everyone knew it at the time."
> 
> Anyone want to read a Rigatoni-flavored White supremacist make a fool of himself, that thread is quite the funz.
Click to expand...



Slavery was a dying practice. Southerners knew it. The leaders of the south knew it.
Machines are more efficient and require less maintenance than humans..
...but you aren't here to have a mature discussion about facts, are you?..you prefer to preen and pose and mock as you display your anti southern bias.
All good. It'll get sorted one day.


----------



## Rotagilla

jillian said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Despite the fact that it has been over for 149 years, the American Civil War's causes, the motives behind the secession of the Deep South, and even the legality of secession itself are still matters of hot debate in historical circles. There has been so much historical revisionism on the subject (on both sides, no less), that it has become difficult to get a clear account of the reasons behind it, although the facts of the actual events are widely available.
> 
> In this thread, I'm going to lay out the facts as I see them. I freely admit to being a Unionist and ardent anti-Confederate, but feel that these are positions borne out by the objective facts of the matter rather than damaging biases. Make of that what you will.
> 
> First, the motives behind secession.
> 
> Too often, you will see apologists for the Confederacy claiming that the South did what it did because they saw that Abraham Lincoln was a despotic tyrant in the making, that he would subjugate the rights of the people and crush the states beneath the boot of the federal government. "Lincoln the Tyrant" is a popular trope, spurred onward by the usual grain of truth that gives such things their lasting appeal: Abraham Lincoln did, as President, suspend _habeas corpus_, raise an army without the consent of Congress, and, yes, ordered the forfeit of property on the part of Confederates (i.e. freed the slaves, though it's not often put like that in a criticism for obvious reasons). You see this repeated over and over in neo-Confederate and anarchocapitalist circles; for instance, a look through the titles of Thomas DiLorenzo's essays shows an obsession with writing extensive character attacks on President Lincoln, and while probably the most prolific, he's not the only one.
> 
> There are obvious problems with this approach, however.  The most glaring is that none of the things that Lincoln did that earn so much scorn could have been done outside the context of the Civil War.  In other words, far from predicting Lincoln's behavior and seceding to avoid it, the southern states were the catalyst for his behavior!  After all, had there been no insurrection, there would have been no need to arrest insurrectionists, raise an army to suppress the insurrection, and emancipate the slaves in Confederate-held territory as a war measure.  (More on the scope of the Emancipation Proclamation later.)
> 
> The other problem, of course, is that there is no shortage of primary source documents from the Confederate governments themselves stating exactly why they seceded.  I see no reason to disbelieve them, so without further ado, the various Declarations of the Causes of Secession from several Confederate states.  I have excerpted them for brevity's sake, but the complete text of each may be found at the links provided.
> 
> Texas: Declaration of the Causes of Secession
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union.
> 
> The government of the United States, by certain joint resolutions, bearing date the 1st day of March, in the year A.D. 1845, proposed to the Republic of Texas, then a free, sovereign and independent nation, the annexation of the latter to the former, as one of the co-equal states thereof,
> 
> The people of Texas, by deputies in convention assembled, on the fourth day of July of the same year, assented to and accepted said proposals and formed a constitution for the proposed State, upon which on the 29th day of December in the same year, said State was formally admitted into the Confederated Union.
> 
> Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association.
> 
> ...
> 
> When we advert to the course of individual non-slave-holding States, and that a majority of their citizens, our grievances assume far greater magnitude.
> 
> The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article *[the fugitive slave clause*] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation...
> 
> In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.
> 
> For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States.
> 
> By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress,
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's kind of what the majority does in a republic. Moving on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments.
> 
> They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a 'higher law' than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights.
> 
> They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.
> 
> They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offenses, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved.
> 
> ...
> 
> And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States.
> 
> In view of these and many other facts, it is meet that our own views should be distinctly proclaimed.
> 
> We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.
> 
> That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.
> 
> By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> South Carolina also chimes in, with this gem: South Carolina: Declaration of the Causes of Secession
> 
> 
> 
> Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union
> 
> The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.
> 
> And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.
> 
> ...
> 
> The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
> 
> *This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made.* The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.
> 
> The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.
> 
> The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.
> 
> The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
> 
> These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.
> 
> We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
> 
> ...
> 
> On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
> 
> ...
> 
> We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And most egregiously, Mississippi: Mississippi: Declaration of the Causes of Secession
> 
> 
> 
> A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
> 
> In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
> 
> Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
> 
> That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.
> 
> The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.
> 
> The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.
> 
> The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.
> 
> It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.
> 
> It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.
> 
> It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.
> 
> It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.
> 
> It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.
> 
> It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.
> 
> It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.
> 
> ...
> 
> Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.
> 
> Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even for those seceding states that did not publish official Declarations of Causes, we may learn much from their secession convention delegates.  For instance, this address of George Williamson, a Commissioner for the state of Louisiana, to the Texas secession convention, March 9, 1861.  Illustrates slavery as a secession aim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To the Hon. O.M. Roberts, President of the Convention of the People of Texas.
> 
> Mr. President and Gentlemen of the people of Texas.
> 
> I have the honor to address you as the commissioner of the people of Louisiana, accredited to your honorable body.
> 
> ...
> 
> The people of Louisiana were unwilling to endanger their liberties and property by submission to the despotism of a single tyrant, or the canting tyranny of pharisaical majorities. Insulted by the denial of her constitutional equality by the non-slaveholding States, outraged by their contemptuous rejection of proffered compromises, and convinced that she was illustrating the capacity of her people for self-government by withdrawing from a union that had failed, without fault of hers, to accomplish its purposes, she declared herself a free and independent State on the 26th day of January last. History affords no example of a people who changed their government for more just or substantial reasons. Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery, and of the free institutions of the founders of the Federal Union, bequeathed to their posterity. As her neighbor and sister State, she desires the hearty co-operation of Texas in the formation of a Southern Confederacy. She congratulates herself on the recent disposition evinced by your body to meet this wish, by the election of delegates to the Montgomery convention. Louisiana and Texas have the same language, laws and institutions. Between the citizens of each exists the most cordial social and commercial intercourse. The Red river and the Sabine form common highways for the transportation of their produce to the markets of the world. Texas affords to the commerce of Louisiana a large portion of her products, and in exchange the banks of New Orleans furnish Texas with her only paper circulating medium. Louisiana supplies to Texas a market for her surplus wheat, grain and stock; both States have large areas of fertile, uncultivated lands, peculiarly adapted to slave labor; and *they are both so deeply interested in African slavery that it may be said to be absolutely necessary to their existence, and is the keystone to the arch of their prosperity.* ...
> 
> The people of Louisiana would consider it a most fatal blow to African slavery, if Texas either did not secede or having seceded should not join her destinies to theirs in a Southern Confederacy. If she remains in the union the abolitionists would continue their work of incendiarism and murder. Emigrant aid societies would arm with Sharp's rifles predatory bands to infest her northern borders. The Federal Government would mock at her calamity in accepting the recent bribes in the army bill and Pacific railroad bill, and with abolition treachery would leave her unprotected frontier to the murderous inroads of hostile savages. Experience justifies these expectations. A professedly friendly federal administration gave Texas no substantial protection against the Indians or abolitionists, and what must she look for from an administration avowedly inimical and supported by no vote within her borders. Promises won from the timid and faithless are poor hostages of good faith. As a separate republic, Louisiana remembers too well the whisperings of European diplomacy for the abolition of slavery in the times of annexation not to be apprehensive of bolder demonstrations from the same quarter and the North in this country. The people of the slaveholding States are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery. The isolation of any one of them from the others would make her a theatre for abolition emissaries from the North and from Europe. Her existence would be one of constant peril to herself and of imminent danger to other neighboring slave-holding communities. A decent respect for the opinions and interests of the Gulf States seems to indicate that Texas should co-operate with them. I am authorized to say to your honorable body that Louisiana does not expect any beneficial result from the peace conference now assembled at Washington. She is unwilling that her action should depend on the border States. Her interests are identical with Texas and the seceding States. With them she will at present co-operate, hoping and believing in his own good time God will awaken the people of the border States to the vanity of asking for, or depending upon, guarantees or compromises wrung from a people whose consciences are too sublimated to be bound by that sacred compact, the constitution of the late United States. That constitution the Southern States have never violated, and taking it as the basis of our new government we hope to form a slave-holding confederacy that will secure to us and our remotest posterity the great blessings its authors designed in the Federal Union. With the social balance wheel of slavery to regulate its machinery, we may fondly indulge the hope that our Southern government will be perpetual.
> 
> Geo. Williamson
> Commissioner of the State of Louisiana
> City of Austin Feby 11th 1861.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To hear from yet another Deep South state, a speech of E.S. Dargan to the Secession Convention of Alabama, January 11, 1861.
> 
> 
> 
> I wish, Mr. President, to express the feelings with which I vote for the secession of Alabama from the Government of the United States; and to state, in a few words, the reasons that impel me to this act.
> 
> I feel impelled, Mr. President, to vote for this Ordinance by an overruling necessity. Years ago I was convinced that the Southern States would be compelled either to separate from the North, by dissolving the Federal Government, or they would be compelled to abolish the institution of African Slavery. This, in my judgment, was the only alternative; and I foresaw that the South would be compelled, at some day, to make her selection. The day is now come, and Alabama must make her selection, either to secede from the Union, and assume the position of a sovereign, independent State, or she must submit to a system of policy on the part of the Federal Government that, in a short time, will compel her to abolish African Slavery.
> 
> Mr. President, if pecuniary loss alone were involved in the abolition of slavery, I should hesitate long before I would give the vote I now intend to give. If the destruction of slavery entailed on us poverty alone, I could bear it, for I have seen poverty and felt its sting. But poverty, Mr. President, would be one of the least of the evils that would befall us from the abolition of African slavery. There are now in the slaveholding States over four millions of slaves; dissolve the relation of master and slave, and what, I ask, would become of that race? To remove them from amongst us is impossible. History gives us no account of the exodus of such a number of persons. We neither have a place to which to remove them, nor the means of such removal. They therefore must remain with us; and if the relation of master and slave be dissolved, and our slaves turned loose amongst us without restraint, they would either be destroyed by our own hands - the hands to which they look, and look with confidence, for protection - or we ourselves would become demoralized and degraded. *The former result would take place, and we ourselves would become the executioners of our own slaves.* To this extent would the policy of our Northern enemies drive us; and thus would we not only be reduced to poverty, but what is still worse, we should be driven to crime, to the commission of sin; and we must, therefore, this day elect between the Government formed by our fathers (the whole spirit of which has been perverted), and POVERTY AND CRIME! This being the alternative, I cannot hesitate for a moment what my duty is. I must separate from the Government of my fathers, the one under which I have lived, and under which I wished to die. But I must do my duty to my country and my fellow beings; and humanity, in my judgment, demands that Alabama should separate herself from the Government of the United States.
> 
> If I am wrong in this responsible act, I hope my God may forgive me; for I am not actuated, as I think, from any motive save that of justice and philanthropy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Abolition would *force them to commit murder, nay, genocide* in his view, because that would be better than being "degraded" by having free blacks in their midst.
> 
> And to put the final nail in the coffin, we go to the Vice President of the Confederate States, speaking of the new Confederate Constitution. Alexander H. Stephens: Cornerstone Address
> 
> 
> 
> March 21, 1861
> We are in the midst of one of the greatest epochs in our history. The last ninety days will mark one of the most memorable eras in the history of modern civilization.
> 
> ...
> 
> But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other-though last, not least: the new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions-African slavery as it exists among us-the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. *This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.* Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the Constitution, was the prevailing idea at the time. The Constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly used against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it-when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."
> 
> Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; *its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.* This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, *based upon* this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It is so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North who still cling to these errors with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind; from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is, forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics: their conclusions are right if their premises are. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights, with the white man.... I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the Northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery; that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle-a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of man. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds we should succeed, and that he and his associates in their crusade against our institutions would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as well as in physics and mechanics, I admitted, but told him it was he and those acting with him who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.
> 
> In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.
> 
> As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are, and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo-it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not therefore look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first Government ever instituted upon principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many Governments have been founded upon the principles of certain classes; but the classes thus enslaved, were of the same race, and in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws. The negro by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, [note: A reference to Genesis, 9:20-27, which was used as a justification for slavery] is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite-then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is the best, not only for the superior but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances or to question them. For His own purposes He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made "one star to differ from another in glory."
> 
> The great objects of humanity are best attained, when conformed to his laws and degrees, in the formation of Governments as well as in all things else. Our Confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders "is become the chief stone of the corner" in our new edifice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And just as a reminder of what change in the Confederate Constitution he referred to:
> 
> 
> 
> Constitution of the Confederate States said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Parts in red are relevant. The section of the Texas Declaration in blue admits that Texas surrendered her separate national character.
> 
> I should think that this lays to rest claims that the southern states were benevolently attempting to avoid general oppression; they rather acted in order to keep a large segment of their own populations oppressed.
> 
> Ah, but regardless of their reasons, moral or immoral, it was the right of the states to end the compact of the Constitution, cries out the Libertarian circle!  It was never the intention of the Founders to forever bind the states against their wills, and they intentionally left the door open to secession by not explicitly banning it in the Constitution!  Lincoln's actions, therefore, forever and improperly removed a natural right of the states, a safeguard against future tyranny.
> 
> Well, no.  Let's look at the intentions of the Founders.  Secession did indeed occur to them; after all, the Hartford Convention at which a minority of New England delegates advocated secession had happened during their lifetimes and many were still alive during the Nullification Crisis of the 1830s.  There are therefore many writings from several Founding Fathers to draw from.  At random, let's start with James Madison.  From this letter to William Rives.
> 
> 
> 
> The milliners it appears, endeavor to shelter themselves under a distinction between a delegation and a surrender of powers. But if the powers be attributes of sovereignty & nationality & the grant of them be perpetual, *as is necessarily implied*, where not otherwise expressed, *sovereignty & nationality according to the extent of the grant are effectually transferred by it*, and a dispute about the name, is but a battle of words. The practical result is not indeed left to argument or inference. *The words of the Constitution are explicit that the Constitution & laws of the U. S. shall be supreme over the Constitution & laws of the several States, supreme in their exposition and execution as well as in their authority. Without a supremacy in those respects it would be like a scabbard in the hand of a soldier without a sword in it. The imagination itself is startled at the idea of twenty four independent expounders of a rule that cannot exist, but in a meaning and operation, the same for all.*
> 
> The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not only the question of nullification, but the more formidable one of secession. It is asked whether a State by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the Union, may not of right withdraw from it at will. As this is a simple question whether a State, more than an individual, has a right to violate its engagements, it would seem that it might be safely left to answer itself. But the countenance given to the claim shows that it cannot be so lightly dismissed. The natural feelings which laudably attach the people composing a State, to its authority and importance, are at present too much excited by the unnatural feelings, with which they have been inspired agst their brethren of other States, not to expose them, to the danger of being misled into *erroneous views of the nature of the Union* and the interest they have in it. One thing at least seems to be too clear to be questioned, that whilst a State remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution & laws of the Union. In the event of an actual secession without the Consent of the Co States, the course to be pursued by these involves questions painful in the discussion of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Madison actually considered the idea of unilateral secession so preposterous that until it actually came up when South Carolina first threatened it he felt there was no need to even mention it, and was astonished that he should have to.  He also references the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution as proof positive that the states had no such ability, something that modern neo-Confederates tend to deny.  Given that he wrote the thing, I should think I trust Madison's interpretation of it. Also note that he asserts that sovereignty and nationality lay with the United States, not the individual states.
> 
> And now for the thoughts of the man commonly referred to as the father of our country, George Washington, chairman of the Constitutional Convention and first President.  This is from his Circular to the States.
> 
> 
> 
> There are four things, which I humbly conceive, are essential to the well being, I may even venture to say, to the existence of the United States as an Independent Power:
> 
> 1st. An *indissoluble Union of the States* under one Federal Head.
> 
> 2dly. A Sacred regard to Public Justice.
> 
> 3dly. The adoption of a proper Peace Establishment, and
> 
> 4thly. The prevalence of that pacific and friendly Disposition, among the People of the United States, which will induce them to forget their local prejudices and policies, to make those mutual concessions which are requisite to the general prosperity, and in some instances, to sacrifice their individual advantages to the interest of the Community.
> 
> ...
> 
> Under the first head, altho' it may not be necessary or proper for me in this place to enter into a particular disquisition of the principles of the Union, and to take up the great question which has been frequently agitated, whether it be expedient and requisite for the States to delegate a larger proportion of Power to Congress, or not, Yet it will be a part of my duty, and that of every true Patriot, to assert without reserve, and to insist upon the following positions, That unless the States will suffer Congress to exercise those prerogatives, they are undoubtedly invested with by the Constitution, every thing must very rapidly tend to Anarchy and confusion, That it is indispensable to the happiness of the individual States, that there should be lodged somewhere, a Supreme Power to regulate and govern the general concerns of the Confederated Republic, without which the Union cannot be of long duration. That there must be a faithful and pointed compliance on the part of every State, with the late proposals and demands of Congress, or the most fatal consequences will ensue, *That whatever measures have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or contribute to violate or lessen the Sovereign Authority, ought to be considered as hostile to the Liberty and Independency of America, and the Authors of them treated accordingly*, and lastly, that unless we can be enabled by the concurrence of the States, to participate of the fruits of the Revolution, and enjoy the essential benefits of Civil Society, under a form of Government so free and uncorrupted, so happily guarded against the danger of oppression, as has been devised and adopted by the Articles of Confederation, it will be a subject of regret, that so much blood and treasure have been lavished for no purpose, that so many sufferings have been encountered without a compensation, and that so many sacrifices have been made in vain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ouch.  That one's got to sting, especially since many neo-Confederates actually hold Washington as a hero.  There was in fact a portrait of him dominating the front wall of the hall in Montgomery where the Confederate Constitution was drawn up.
> 
> But these are the opinions of men.  What does that Supreme Law of the Land say, actually?  Often the Tenth Amendment is cited as a grant of the power to break up the Union.  That Amendment:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States Constitution said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But this explicitly applies to powers not delegated to the United States.  So let's see what is.
> 
> 
> 
> United States Constitution said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, *suppress Insurrections* and repel Invasions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Insurrection and rebellion are obviously illegal; otherwise there would be no provision for suppressing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States Constitution said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, if rebellion is legal, why the injunction against it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States Constitution said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, *keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War*, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, if you need the consent of Congress to raise an army, then it would seem that just leaving would be out; after all, if you can just leave, why bother having such a restriction?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States Constitution said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treason against the United States, shall consist only in *levying War against them*, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaks for itself, I think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States Constitution said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory* or other Property belonging to the United States; and *nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States*, or of any particular State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This one's the kicker.  When taken in the context of the Supremacy Clause, we see that the states cannot violate the territorial sovereignty of the United States.  Secession is such a violation.  Here is that Clause, which is the one Madison referred to in his letter to Senator Rives:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States Constitution said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, *shall be the supreme Law of the Land*; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, *any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where is the right to secede?  I'm certainly not seeing it.  Incidentally, if that was such a big deal to the Confederate States, you would think they would have seen fit to include it in their own constitution.  They did not.  In fact, the only change they made which affects the ability of states to leave their union is this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confederate Constitution said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a *permanent federal government*, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So much for the right of secession.
> 
> Now, none of this is to say that the North was all sweetness and light.  It was not. While slavery was the proximate cause of the initial secessions, and therefore the ultimate cause of the war, freeing the slaves was not the North's motive in prosecuting the war. Rather, the North was motivated primarily to preserve the Union; while Lincoln was personally an abolitionist, he did not believe it within his power as President to free the slaves. (Ironic, since he did take several powers normally reserved for Congress - namely, suspension of _habeus corpus_ and calling out the militia to suppress insurrection - upon himself in the interim between his inauguration and Congress coming to session.)
> 
> The Emancipation Proclamation was indeed a great step, but it was first and foremost a war measure.  Slave states which did not secede from the Union were permitted to keep their slaves until the passage of the 13th Amendment.  In fact, prior to the Proclamation, Lincoln rescinded orders by Generals John Frémont and David Hunter freeing the slaves in areas of the Confederacy they had captured; he dismissed Frémont when the general refused the President's orders to reverse his decision.
> 
> It was political reality that making the war about slavery would likely have cost Lincoln the war (Ulysses S. Grant said he would resign if he thought the war's objective was to free the slaves, and the border states would likely have simply seceded themselves), but that doesn't change the fact that the Union's prosecution of the war was not to free the slaves; it just makes it more excusable.
> 
> However, what is not excusable is the South's behavior prior to and during the Civil War. War would not have happened without secession. The initial secessions were without doubt motivated by a desire to maintain and expand chattel slavery (secessions after Lincoln took office were motivated by an unwillingness to contribute troops to fight the South, but again, without slavery none of it would have happened), and that is what matters to the causes of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> interesting analysis. i will ponder it. you are absolutely correct about insurrection, treason, and rebellion being illegal. that is why the 2nd amendment was never intended to create a means of fighting the government.
Click to expand...




So were the colonists in 1776 patriots or treasonous traitors?

Did king george have the right to invade the colonies because they wanted to separate from england?


----------



## TwoBeersOneCAn

This has been a very interesting thread.  Interesting enough that I quit lurking and made an account to post.  I must say, you guys (with at least one notable exception) are admirable with your sources and knowledge, but I just feel you're going about it the totally wrong way.  You're debating with the assumption that your adversary thinks as a scholar.  He does not; he is an obvious ideologue.  You can tell you're hitting sensitive points because our friend James' progress through this thread.  He initially was quite calm and cordial, but now that he's been proven wrong again and again, his true feelings are coming out.

James, I am a fan of Occam's Razor.  I won't insult you by asking you if you know what that is, because you have demonstrated yourself to be able to research (your conclusion making progress leaves questions, however).  You claim that the CSA is currently under occupation by the USA, which by the vast majority of American perspectives is untrue.  Which of the following is more likely?

A. You are correct and about 99.9% of the rest of Americans are too stupid or apathetic to know.
B. You are incorrectly arguing a dishonest, fringe perspective and 99.9% of of Americans know this and that's why they don't care.

Which is it?  Are you the smartest person out of 317 million?  Or (Occam's Razor) you're using dishonest research and cherry picking to support your already existing conclusions?

My conclusion is that you're super mad that black people have rights now and you're willing to bend over backwards to prop up the conditions that allow their subjugation without saying that's why you support those conditions.


----------



## Rotagilla

TwoBeersOneCAn said:


> This has been a very interesting thread.  Interesting enough that I quit lurking and made an account to post.  I must say, you guys (with at least one notable exception) are admirable with your sources and knowledge, but I just feel you're going about it the totally wrong way.  You're debating with the assumption that your adversary thinks as a scholar.  He does not; he is an obvious ideologue.  You can tell you're hitting sensitive points because our friend James' progress through this thread.  He initially was quite calm and cordial, but now that he's been proven wrong again and again, his true feelings are coming out.
> 
> James, I am a fan of Occam's Razor.  I won't insult you by asking you if you know what that is, because you have demonstrated yourself to be able to research (your conclusion making progress leaves questions, however).  You claim that the CSA is currently under occupation by the USA, which by the vast majority of American perspectives is untrue.  Which of the following is more likely?
> 
> A. You are correct and about 99.9% of the rest of Americans are too stupid or apathetic to know.
> B. You are incorrectly arguing a dishonest, fringe perspective and 99.9% of of Americans know this and that's why they don't care.
> 
> Which is it?  Are you the smartest person out of 317 million?  Or (Occam's Razor) you're using dishonest research and cherry picking to support your already existing conclusions?
> 
> My conclusion is that you're super mad that black people have rights now and you're willing to bend over backwards to prop up the conditions that allow their subjugation without saying that's why you support those conditions.



you write off southerners as "dishonest" and "fringe"..and then go on to make up random numbers "99.9%" and "317 million" and pretend they support your anti southern bias.

The south tried to peacefully and legally withdraw from the union. lincoln wanted war and knew he could provoke the south by invading charleston.

Northerners didn't want to fight lincolns war..there were draft riots in new york.

The north is where the jim crow laws started because THEY didn't want all these illiterate, unskilled negroes coming to THEIR cities after lincoln "freed" them...
....but it's more fun to make stuff up and mock southerners and feign superiority.

All good, though...It'll get sorted one day.

Let me ask you..were the colonists in 1776 patriots for wanting to withdraw from england and form a government that suited them better?..or were they "traitors"? 

Was king george correct to invade the u.s. and try to force the colonies back under english control at gunpoint?


----------



## TwoBeersOneCAn

Rotty, you are boring, I want to talk to James.  In your reply to me you include many points already debunked and I have seen where attempting to correct you goes.

Answer this question.  Are you correct about the CSA and the USA, and 99% of everyone else is wrong?


----------



## TwoBeersOneCAn

"All good, though...It'll get sorted one day."

We can actually agree on that one.  One day, either the last remnants of racists/confederates in the south will die of old age (with each passing generation they lose support among even their own children) or the "South will rise again" only to be smashed by the military.  The first Civil War lasted about four years.  The next one (if it happens) will last about four hours.  You don't have the numbers, you don't have the technology, and you especially don't have the strategy or intelligence.


----------



## Rotagilla

TwoBeersOneCAn said:


> "All good, though...It'll get sorted one day."
> 
> We can actually agree on that one.  One day, either the last remnants of racists/confederates in the south will die of old age (with each passing generation they lose support among even their own children) or the "South will rise again" only to be smashed by the military.  The first Civil War lasted about four years.  The next one (if it happens) will last about four hours.  You don't have the numbers, you don't have the technology, and you especially don't have the strategy or intelligence.



That's what the greeks said...that's what the romans said...that's what the british said...that's what the french said...that's what the russians said in 1917...and again in the '80's.
All nations/empires collapse eventually...the more corrupt, the more violent the resistance.
All it took was 3% of the population willing to fight to beat the best army in the world at the time found this nation...
Cling to your fantasies of the mighty military crushing citizens....it won't happen, though.

You aren't a student of history, I see...but your anti southern bias leaks through..
Collapse, partitioning and reconstruction are the next phases this country will go through...

Don't be afraid..it's just the natural course of citizens versus corrupt governments...and the gvmts always lose eventually.


----------



## TwoBeersOneCAn

Rotty, which is it?  Are you and your friend James the two smartest people in America and almost everyone else is wrong?  Am I in the internet presence of a 200 point IQ?


----------



## Rogue 9

James Everett said:


> YankeeROGUE9,
> I do not see the names of every American citizen at the bottom of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution either. If as I stated it was not approved by the States legislatures then it was done in violation of Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation. The U.S. Claims to be a nation of laws, if this articles was violated then you have a _*de facto*_ government. Article XIII did not allow for the whole of the people to alter one word in the Articles of Confederation, it is specific....
> *"nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.*
> 
> Do you see the signatures of the state governors at the bottom of the Constitution?  The bills from their legislatures?
> YANKEE Rogue9,
> You state
> *"The Articles government was not working; that was the entire point of the Convention in the first place. "
> The Articles were in place for six years, and were actually amendable via the confirmation of alterations by each State legislature. They were not working ONLY for the intentions of the Nationalists that you YANKEES have such a love affair with, who wanted a government NOT of liberty for the people, but a government of power granduer and splendor to rival that of England's monarchy, this is why YOUR U.S. is in a perpetual state of war, and hegemony.  The 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution did NOT work as we see it took one of history's bloodiest wars to enforce its TYRANNY, (LINCOLN'S REBELLION VIA THE NORTHS VIOLATION OF THE LAWFUL AUTHORITY OF THE TENTH AMENDMENT) . It is still NOT working for the purpose of Liberty, it is working however to the purpose of tyranny. As for East Tennessee, when Your Lincoln called for troops to make war on the Southern State, East Tennessee rejected the union at that point. You dont know spit about Tennessee, YANKEE. I DO!  My family has been here since it was a wilderness. Again, the United States was a Confederacy of States under the Articles, there was NO national aspect. The whole of the People were NOT party to it, and could NOT have legally altered one word in it. The 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution had to be a treaty, otherwise it is a de facto government in violation of the LAW under the Articles. As far as Admiralty law, and common law,The passport of such read differently one states that the individual is a U.S. Citizen, the other an American citizen. You can google and post contradiction all you want, however, you as I have clearly witnessed in our exchanges, have little understanding of law, or history. Now I have a question for you...
> Have you settled on a definition for YOUR CONstitution that works for you? Once you claimed it to be a compact, and when I gave you the proper definition, you then claimed it to be a charter, then I gave you that definition. What is it to become in your feeble mind next in order to fit your feeble position?
> And last but in NO way least, YOU CANNOT WIN THIS DEBATE, UNTIL YOU CAN CITE THE LAW, ARTICLE WITHIN YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, THAT STATES THAT SECESSION IS AN ILLEGAL, OR UNLAWFUL ACT. YOU CONTINUE TO AVOID THE ONLY THING THAT CAN WIN THE DEBATE FOR YOU. CITE THE LAW YANKEE BOY!!!!*


Wow.







Now that that's out of the way...

If the Articles government was working so well, *why was a convention called to alter it?*  Answer me that; it'll be interesting.

As for your citation, I say *again:*


			
				United States Constitution Article IV said:
			
		

> *The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States*; and _*nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States*_, or of any particular State.


There.  What in the hell do you think that means?  Did they just write it in there for giggles? 

Now for miscellany:  East Tennessee did in fact overwhelmingly reject secession in both referendums, it did in fact hold a separate convention after the (rigged) June 8th referendum which voted to break away from Tennessee and rejoin the Union, and it was in fact answered with brutal military occupation when it presented its resolutions to the Tennessee legislature.  The whole of the people do in fact have a right to alter their government; since you contend otherwise I can only conclude that you are a statist.  I happen to have my passport, and it says I'm a citizen of the United States, which is entirely correct per the 14th Amendment.  And I haven't been redefining the Constitution; I argued within the compact/contract theory you espouse to show how you're just as wrong within its context as you are under the actual case, but you're too dense to even realize what happened.  Almost nothing you've said is right. 


Rotagilla said:


> TwoBeersOneCAn said:
> 
> 
> 
> "All good, though...It'll get sorted one day."
> 
> We can actually agree on that one.  One day, either the last remnants of racists/confederates in the south will die of old age (with each passing generation they lose support among even their own children) or the "South will rise again" only to be smashed by the military.  The first Civil War lasted about four years.  The next one (if it happens) will last about four hours.  You don't have the numbers, you don't have the technology, and you especially don't have the strategy or intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what the greeks said...that's what the romans said...that's what the british said...that's what the french said...that's what the russians said in 1917...and again in the '80's.
> All nations/empires collapse eventually...the more corrupt, the more violent the resistance.
> All it took was 3% of the population willing to fight to beat the best army in the world at the time found this nation...
> Cling to your fantasies of the mighty military crushing citizens....it won't happen, though.
> 
> You aren't a student of history, I see...but your anti southern bias leaks through..
> Collapse, partitioning and reconstruction are the next phases this country will go through...
> 
> Don't be afraid..it's just the natural course of citizens versus corrupt governments...and the gvmts always lose eventually.
Click to expand...

Now *you're* making up numbers.  Roughly 30% of the colonists resisted British rule, and they had the heavy military assistance of the French Empire.  Keep your delusions, though; they're amusing.


----------



## Rogue 9

Rotagilla said:


> TwoBeersOneCAn said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has been a very interesting thread.  Interesting enough that I quit lurking and made an account to post.  I must say, you guys (with at least one notable exception) are admirable with your sources and knowledge, but I just feel you're going about it the totally wrong way.  You're debating with the assumption that your adversary thinks as a scholar.  He does not; he is an obvious ideologue.  You can tell you're hitting sensitive points because our friend James' progress through this thread.  He initially was quite calm and cordial, but now that he's been proven wrong again and again, his true feelings are coming out.
> 
> James, I am a fan of Occam's Razor.  I won't insult you by asking you if you know what that is, because you have demonstrated yourself to be able to research (your conclusion making progress leaves questions, however).  You claim that the CSA is currently under occupation by the USA, which by the vast majority of American perspectives is untrue.  Which of the following is more likely?
> 
> A. You are correct and about 99.9% of the rest of Americans are too stupid or apathetic to know.
> B. You are incorrectly arguing a dishonest, fringe perspective and 99.9% of of Americans know this and that's why they don't care.
> 
> Which is it?  Are you the smartest person out of 317 million?  Or (Occam's Razor) you're using dishonest research and cherry picking to support your already existing conclusions?
> 
> My conclusion is that you're super mad that black people have rights now and you're willing to bend over backwards to prop up the conditions that allow their subjugation without saying that's why you support those conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you write off southerners as "dishonest" and "fringe"..and then go on to make up random numbers "99.9%" and "317 million" and pretend they support your anti southern bias.
Click to expand...

Not Southerners; just you.  


Rotagilla said:


> The south tried to peacefully and legally withdraw from the union. lincoln wanted war and knew he could provoke the south by invading charleston.


Cannon fire is peaceful?  Also, Lincoln didn't invade Charleston (at least, not that early in the war); what the hell are you talking about?  


Rotagilla said:


> Northerners didn't want to fight lincolns war..there were draft riots in new york.


And more volunteers than the Army could process, too.  


Rotagilla said:


> The north is where the jim crow laws started because THEY didn't want all these illiterate, unskilled negroes coming to THEIR cities after lincoln "freed" them...
> ....but it's more fun to make stuff up and mock southerners and feign superiority.


[citation needed]


----------



## James Everett

Rogue 9 said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TwoBeersOneCAn said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has been a very interesting thread.  Interesting enough that I quit lurking and made an account to post.  I must say, you guys (with at least one notable exception) are admirable with your sources and knowledge, but I just feel you're going about it the totally wrong way.  You're debating with the assumption that your adversary thinks as a scholar.  He does not; he is an obvious ideologue.  You can tell you're hitting sensitive points because our friend James' progress through this thread.  He initially was quite calm and cordial, but now that he's been proven wrong again and again, his true feelings are coming out.
> 
> James, I am a fan of Occam's Razor.  I won't insult you by asking you if you know what that is, because you have demonstrated yourself to be able to research (your conclusion making progress leaves questions, however).  You claim that the CSA is currently under occupation by the USA, which by the vast majority of American perspectives is untrue.  Which of the following is more likely?
> 
> A. You are correct and about 99.9% of the rest of Americans are too stupid or apathetic to know.
> B. You are incorrectly arguing a dishonest, fringe perspective and 99.9% of of Americans know this and that's why they don't care.
> 
> Which is it?  Are you the smartest person out of 317 million?  Or (Occam's Razor) you're using dishonest research and cherry picking to support your already existing conclusions?
> 
> My conclusion is that you're super mad that black people have rights now and you're willing to bend over backwards to prop up the conditions that allow their subjugation without saying that's why you support those conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you write off southerners as "dishonest" and "fringe"..and then go on to make up random numbers "99.9%" and "317 million" and pretend they support your anti southern bias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not Southerners; just you.
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> The south tried to peacefully and legally withdraw from the union. lincoln wanted war and knew he could provoke the south by invading charleston.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cannon fire is peaceful?  Also, Lincoln didn't invade Charleston (at least, not that early in the war); what the hell are you talking about?
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Northerners didn't want to fight lincolns war..there were draft riots in new york.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And more volunteers than the Army could process, too.
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> The north is where the jim crow laws started because THEY didn't want all these illiterate, unskilled negroes coming to THEIR cities after lincoln "freed" them...
> ....but it's more fun to make stuff up and mock southerners and feign superiority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> [citation needed]
Click to expand...

First, Rogue9, and twobeers....
What makes you think that I am not calm? I simply posted an example of Paperviews childish insults, and then explained what I had just done. It is always the Yankee who when seeing defeat, begins the childish mud slinging, and accusations of "Racism" such as you have just accused. I love my fellow man, Black Red, yellow Brown and White. It is not I who distinguish between the differing colors of my fellow man, that would be YOU and your Yankee brethren. I never once mentioned Race, YOU however have at every opportunity.
Now, twobeers, or whoever,
you have made this statement followed by two questions....
You claim that the CSA is currently under occupation by the USA, which by the vast majority of American perspectives is untrue. Which of the following is more likely?

A. You are correct and about 99.9% of the rest of Americans are too stupid or apathetic to know.
B. You are incorrectly arguing a dishonest, fringe perspective and 99.9% of of Americans know this and that's why they don't care.
Lets look at the evidence, of which you ignore....
First, there are many thousands of Southern Confederates, as well as Southern Nationalists who share the same view as I.
You as a Yankee, are out of the loop here, you seem to be under the belief that Any Southerner who defends our Confederacy is a racist, this is evidence of your lack of knowledge concerning our people.
Rogue9, You Know nothing of Tennessee, the State wherein I was born, have lived all my life, my ancestors where here when Tennessee was still part of North Carolina, and the the lost State of Franklin, and you make statements concerning Tennessee without backing them up with factual evidence. Therefore allow me to ask....Have you ever lived in Tennessee? I would quiz you on Tennessee history,however you would simply research and supply the answers. Except perhaps if I posed some that you could not find so easily on the internet. ..I will give that some thought later.
*The secession ordinance was ratified by popular vote on June 8, and on June 24, 1861, Governor Harris proclaimed that Tennessee's ties with the United Sates were dissolved.
You may claim fraud all you wish, but please post the facts backed by evidence!*
You know nothing about our cause, because just as every Yankee, YOU have not done your research, therefore YOU are practising Occam's Razor theory...You have made assumptions, and accusations to promote your positions dishonestly and without research.
The purpose of the Restoration effort is not even to restore the CSA government as our governmental institution, as it contains the same Nationalist flaw as does YOUR USA. Our effort is to use the FACT that the CSA government was never surrendered, or a peace treaty concluded between the USA and our CSA as a legal avenue to return to the only true federal system that ever existed in America, and that Sir, are the Articles of Confederation, that you have been taught to believe were not working. So this flies in the face of your childish assumption that we somehow wish to subjugate our Black brothers. You HATE the Southern people and wish to keep them subjugated by continually beating them from an incorrect perceived moral high ground that you think the North holds. What we want is a return to common law under a federal system, wherein everyone is FREE to do as they choose as long as in doing so they do NOT infringe on the life, liberty, or property of another. Sir, YOU are correct, I am an ideologue, I believe unwaveringly in LIBERTY for all of my fellow man, wherein you believe in TYRANNY.
Question number (1)...
A. You are correct and about 99.9% of the rest of Americans are too stupid or apathetic to know.
Answer..*.I do NOT care what 99% of Americans know, I am only concerned with conveying the truth to my fellow Southern Confederate Americans. What you Yankees think you know, what you Yankees believe is irrelevant to our cause. And yes, as result of your Governments INDOCTRINATION, as well as the ignorant such as you who THINK they know something who continually beat my people with a stick of guilt, as if the Yankee holds some sort of moral high ground which they do NOT, it is up to those of us who know the truth to provide it.*
The fact is, and I CHALLENGE YOU ON THIS POINT AS WELL....The Confederate States of America government was NEVER surrendered, nor a peace treaty concluded between the CSA and the USA. Our President was abducted, and held in solitary confinement for two years, and refused to surrender our CSA government. Yankees touted that they were going to hold the trial of the century, but quietly freed our President, because the USA would lose all they had gained on the battlefield in a court of law wherein the world would be witness to the TRUTH of the Northern rebellion to the lawful authority of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution. If you can prove otherwise, then by all means do so. Were our Confederate governments both State and central forced into exile? Of course they were.
As always, I will post the evidence, SOMETHING YOU HAVE YET DONE TO SUPPORT YOUR INCORRECT ASSERTIONS.
Since You Know so much about Tennessee, none of this will come as a surprise to you.
Isham Harris was elected governor of Tennessee before secession, held two terms, and was a lame duck at the time Tennessee was invaded and the Capitol fell to the Yankee insurrection, Robert Caruthers was the governor elect, yet because of the Yankee rebellion and occupation of Tennessee he was NOT allowed to take office. He remains listed as one of Tennessee's governors however.
On March 12, 1862, Andrew Johnson, whom President Lincoln had appointed Military Governor of Tennessee, arrived and took over for the Union.
Governor Johnson demanded that all of Nashville's city officers and employees take an oath of allegiance tot he Union, when they refused, he arrested them for treason and appointed his own officers in their place.
*WE SEE HERE A GOVERNMENT BEING FORCED INTO EXILE.*
*These are the COMPLETE FACTS....Occam's Razor? Who here is guilty?????*
In the fall of 1864, Governor Johnson was elected Vice-President of the United States, and he was to be inaugurated on March 4, 1865.

A convention of Unionist met in Nashville January 9, 1865, drafted amendments to the state constitution, nominated candidates for governor and the legislature, and set February 22 and March 4, 1865 for the people to ratify their actions.

No Confederates or Confederate sympathizers, were allowed to vote, AGAINST THE PEACE AND DIGNITY OF THE STATE.
*So now we see that the majority of the people of Tennessee were denied suffrage.
More evidence that our de jure government was forced into exile.
These are the COMPLETE FACTS....Occam's Razor? Again, who here is guilty?????
In this unconstitutional process, William Gannaway Brownlow was elected Governor on March 4, and he took office on April 5, 1865.

The Legislature of 1869, a military legislature acting under threat duress and collusion, called for a vote on holding a constitutional convention, and electing delegated to attend it.

This election, limited to only pro-unionist which was held on December 18, 1869, favored a convention by a very large vote.
AGAIN....
WE SEE HERE A GOVERNMENT BEING FORCED INTO EXILE.
These are the COMPLETE FACTS....Occam's Razor? Who here is guilty?????*
Convention of 1870

The Convention met in Nashville on January 10, and elected General John C. Brown of Pulaski as its president. This act clearly violated Section XXIV, of the 1796 Declaration of Rights: ". . . that in all cases the military shall be in strict subordination to civil authority" by placing a military official in charge of developing a new government for Tennessee. 
Again....
*WE SEE HERE A GOVERNMENT BEING FORCED INTO EXILE.
These are the COMPLETE FACTS....Occam's Razor? Who here is guilty?????
According to Military Government and Martial Law [William E. Birkhimer, LL.B., Major General Staff U.S. Army, Third Edition, 1914], ". . . the adoption of a constitution during the war [was] under military orders" (page 110).
The threatening acts of Johnson during his administration as military governor are shown in his actions toward the officials of Nashville. In Lincoln Plan of Reconstruction Charles H. McCarthy observes on page 17, "The mayor and the city council were ordered to take an oath of allegiance to the United States, and on their refusal were imprisoned."
WE SEE HERE A GOVERNMENT BEING FORCED INTO EXILE.
These are the COMPLETE FACTS....Occam's Razor? Who here is guilty?????
Clearly the convention of 1869 operated under duress.

 Duress any unlawful threat or coercion used by person to induce another to act (or refrain from acting) in a manner he or she otherwise would not (or would). Subjecting person to improper pressure which overcomes his will and coerces him to comply with demand to which he would not yield if acting as free agent [Henry-Campbell: Black, Blacks Law Dictionary®, Sixth Edition, West Publishing Co. St. Paul Minnesota, 1990]
Lincoln, and his co-conspirators Grant and Johnson knew they had to bar ex-confederates from involvement in formation the new government for their overthrow of civil government to be a success.
*
*A contract entered into under duress by physical compulsion is void. Also, if a party's manifestation of assent to a contract is induced by an improper threat by the other party that leaves the victim no reasonable alternatives, the contract is voidable by the victim [Henry-Campbell: Black, Blacks Law Dictionary®, Sixth Edition, West Publishing Co. St. Paul Minnesota, 1990]*
*Your next question....*
*B. You are incorrectly arguing a dishonest, fringe perspective and 99.9% of of Americans know this and that's why they don't care.
SO YOU PSEUDO INTELLECTUALS, THIS IS NOT FOR YOU, IT IS FOR MY PEOPLE WHO WILL LEARN THE TRUTH. YOU ONLY THINK YOU KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT OUR CAUSE. I HAVE JUST PROVIDED YOU WITH THE TRUTH, AND I HAVE LITTLE DOUBT, THAT YOU WILL TRY TO DENY IT, YET AGAIN AS I HAVE STATED.......
.I do NOT care what 99% of Americans know, I am only concerned with conveying the truth to my fellow Southern Confederate Americans. What you Yankees think you know, what you Yankees believe is irrelevant to our cause. And yes, as result of your Governments INDOCTRINATION, as well as the ignorant such as you who THINK they know something who continually beat my people with a stick of guilt, as if the Yankee holds some sort of moral high ground which they do NOT, it is up to those of us who know the truth to provide it.
And again I CHALLENGE YOU PSEUDO INTELLECTUAL,....
CITE THE LAW, ARTICLE WITHIN YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, or AAMENDMENTTHERETO  THAT STATES THAT SECESSION IS AN UNLAWFUL, OR ILLEGAL ACT.*
Rogue9, YOU CITE_,  _Article IV section.3. as your defence, this only shows you for the Pseudo intellectual ignorant that you are. *You understand NOTHING of YOUR own 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution! *
_"The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."_
*YOU NEED TO READ AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND YOUR OWN SCOTUS OPINION IN POLLARDS LESSEE V HAGAN.*
*ONCE A STATE IS FORMED FROM A U.S. TERRITORY, IT BECOMES A SOVEREIGN, AND GAINS MUNICIPAL MUNICIPAL JURISDICTION OVER ALL THE LAND, SHORES, AND SOIL UNDER THE WATERS. THE U.S. WHICH HELD ONLY TEMPORARY MUNICIPAL JURISDICTION, CEDED ALL LAND AND MUNICIPAL JURISDICTION WITHIN THE NEWLY FORMED STATE. *
*Sir, The States ARE NOT PROPERTY OF THE United States!!! The territories before a State is formed is property of the United States, once it is formed into a State it gains all rights of sovereignty.*
*You have only continued in the embarrassment of yourself, and every YANKEE you represent. *
*Niccola Machiavelli,.*
*"...[A]llow them [the conquered] to live under their own laws, taking tribute of them, and creating within the country a government composed of a few who will keep it friendly to you.... A city used to liberty can be more easily held by means of its citizens than in any other way....*
*"...[T]hey must at least retain the semblance of the old forms; so that it may seem to the people that there has been no change in the institutions, even though in fact they are entirely different from the old ones. For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often even more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are.... [The conqueror should] not wish that the people... should have occasion to regret the loss of any of their old customs...."*
*In closing, again.....*
*I CHALLENGE YOU two PSEUDO INTELLECTUALS,....*
*CITE THE LAW, ARTICLE WITHIN YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, or AMENDMENT THERETO  THAT STATES THAT SECESSION IS AN UNLAWFUL, OR ILLEGAL ACT.*
One last thing...
Rogue9, You state that YOUR passport shows you as a U.S. citizen; this is because YOU submitted to the fictional jurisdiction established under UCC, I would not expect any ignorant such as you who has clearly shewn himself to have no understanding of his own U.S. CONstitution to understand how to obtain a passport wherein you are a flesh and blood American citizen. I have witnessed this having been accomplished by the Late Douglas McPherson, who had more intelligence in his little toe, than you have in your feeble brain. As for the google BS opinion that you posted...well, it is just that BS.


----------



## James Everett

Rotagilla said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> _..._
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> I so tire of repeating myself.
> 
> Why Did The South Secede Page 5 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Why Did The South Secede Page 5 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> One of your gems from that thread:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> The industrial revolution was occurring and slaves were impractical and more trouble than they were worth. That's a fact..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol.
> 
> 
> Then the one where you went on to say how the _"south didn't want to Import anymore"_ slaves in 1860...
> That was a real knee slapper.
> 
> Or how that rip roarin' 1850 cotton harvester you plucked from wiki was makin' slavery "a fading, inefficient and destructive practice and everyone knew it at the time."
> 
> Anyone want to read a Rigatoni-flavored White supremacist make a fool of himself, that thread is quite the funz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was a dying practice. Southerners knew it. The leaders of the south knew it.
> Machines are more efficient and require less maintenance than humans..
> ...but you aren't here to have a mature discussion about facts, are you?..you prefer to preen and pose and mock as you display your anti southern bias.
> All good. It'll get sorted one day.
Click to expand...

Rotagilla, Sir, thank you, and do not allow these idiots to get to you, YOU ARE DOING A FINE JOB, SHOWING THEM FOR THE IGNORANTS THAT THEY ARE. My hats off to you Sir.......


----------



## JakeStarkey

The development of Constitutional, case, and statute law continued after 1791, guys.

Neither of you clearly are an expert on the Constitution, Lincoln, or the Civil War.

You really should read Rogue9 and paperview with much humbler, contrite souls and far less pride.

If you pulled this stuff in real history writing, you would fail.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> The development of Constitutional, case, and statute law continued after 1791, guys.
> 
> Neither of you clearly are an expert on the Constitution, Lincoln, or the Civil War.
> 
> You really should read Rogue9 and paperview with much humbler, contrite souls and far less pride.
> 
> If you pulled this stuff in real history writing, you would fail.


Again, I cite fact, backed by proof, YET every YANKEE such as YOU simply make statements backed by NOTHING. YOU SIR, are clearly no expert on anything rather than being a follower, a cheerleader of the ignorant. I just posted the same challenge that I have posted over and again, yet none of you can answer the challenge. Further, I have just posed, and shewn YOU that ROGUE9 is ignorant by attempting to cite Article IV section 3 as being a law concerning secession. Rogue9 clearly has no understanding of YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, as I have just evidenced. Yet you state that we really should listen to this person????  Are you not the same person who continually called for this "Paperview" to enter the discussion to teach me something as well? All we got from this person was the equivalent of an 8 year old boy making fart noises with his armpit. Please forgive me if I smiled when you posted....
"You really should read Rogue9 and paperview with much humbler, contrite souls and far less pride."
Your mentors have been soundly defeated by one simple challenge, that neither can rise to. Oh. and one more thing...Everything I posted is true history, and I will challenge you to prove otherwise.
The fact is that nothing here is relevant other than the law, and none of you can cite that law, everything else here is simply side bar discussion, and a simple pissing match created by you and your mentors to avoid the one relevant issue...THE LAW.


----------



## James Everett

For two beers and Rogue9, I forgot to add.....
*In this unconstitutional process, William Gannaway Brownlow was elected Governor on March 4, and he took office on April 5, 1865. This is the same William (Parsons Brownlow who fired into his own loyal "unionist" legislature to coerce them....
Although the state was under military rule, Brownlow’s hand-picked Tennessee Legislature still had to give the appearance of approving the Reconstruction Acts in order to avoid Union enforcement.
The representatives, however, outright refused to do so. Seizing property without due process was unconstitutional and the representatives refused to give Brownlow such a tool to use indiscriminately. Brownlow was furious with them and sent the State militia out at midnight to round them up and bring the representatives at gun point to the Capitol building.
Brownlow ordered them to call themselves to order and pass the Reconstruction bill. Angered and upset at being herded like a bunch of prisoners into the Capitol – they defiantly refused to pass any illegal statutes that seized property without due process. Brownlow turned furious and openly ordered the militia to fire on the representatives. After the soldiers fired a few rounds at the group, the legislature, in fear for its collective lives, passed the Reconstruction Act and began one of the darkest eras of Tennessee history.  In the election of 1867, Brownlow issued an order that forbade the wives and children of former Confederate soldiers to vote in the election. That tactic allowed Brownlow to reduce voter turnout by as much as 95 percent – ensuring his political machines would carry the election. 
Again we see...The majority of the people of Tennessee were denied suffrage.
Proof again that our government was forced into exile.....
On the marble banister in the Capitol, you can still see the bullet marks where Brownlow ordered the militia to fire on the legislature. They have never been repaired and remain as a reminder of the event. 
The Legislature of 1869, a military legislature acting under threat duress and collusion, called for a vote on holding a constitutional convention, and electing delegated to attend it.
I CHALLENGE YOU two PSEUDO INTELLECTUALS,....
CITE THE LAW, ARTICLE WITHIN YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, or AMENDMENT THERETO THAT STATES THAT SECESSION IS AN UNLAWFUL, OR ILLEGAL ACT.*


----------



## JakeStarkey

James, you can post all the evidence you want, but if your interpretation is not logical to that evidence and that narrative then you will always fail.  Rogue9 demonstrated exactly why you are a neophyte blinded by a confirmation bias before you even begin.  Please, you embarrass yourself in front of those who know this subject far better than you.


----------



## Rotagilla

Rogue 9 said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> YankeeROGUE9,
> I do not see the names of every American citizen at the bottom of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution either. If as I stated it was not approved by the States legislatures then it was done in violation of Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation. The U.S. Claims to be a nation of laws, if this articles was violated then you have a _*de facto*_ government. Article XIII did not allow for the whole of the people to alter one word in the Articles of Confederation, it is specific....
> *"nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.*
> 
> Do you see the signatures of the state governors at the bottom of the Constitution?  The bills from their legislatures?
> YANKEE Rogue9,
> You state
> *"The Articles government was not working; that was the entire point of the Convention in the first place. "
> The Articles were in place for six years, and were actually amendable via the confirmation of alterations by each State legislature. They were not working ONLY for the intentions of the Nationalists that you YANKEES have such a love affair with, who wanted a government NOT of liberty for the people, but a government of power granduer and splendor to rival that of England's monarchy, this is why YOUR U.S. is in a perpetual state of war, and hegemony.  The 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution did NOT work as we see it took one of history's bloodiest wars to enforce its TYRANNY, (LINCOLN'S REBELLION VIA THE NORTHS VIOLATION OF THE LAWFUL AUTHORITY OF THE TENTH AMENDMENT) . It is still NOT working for the purpose of Liberty, it is working however to the purpose of tyranny. As for East Tennessee, when Your Lincoln called for troops to make war on the Southern State, East Tennessee rejected the union at that point. You dont know spit about Tennessee, YANKEE. I DO!  My family has been here since it was a wilderness. Again, the United States was a Confederacy of States under the Articles, there was NO national aspect. The whole of the People were NOT party to it, and could NOT have legally altered one word in it. The 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution had to be a treaty, otherwise it is a de facto government in violation of the LAW under the Articles. As far as Admiralty law, and common law,The passport of such read differently one states that the individual is a U.S. Citizen, the other an American citizen. You can google and post contradiction all you want, however, you as I have clearly witnessed in our exchanges, have little understanding of law, or history. Now I have a question for you...
> Have you settled on a definition for YOUR CONstitution that works for you? Once you claimed it to be a compact, and when I gave you the proper definition, you then claimed it to be a charter, then I gave you that definition. What is it to become in your feeble mind next in order to fit your feeble position?
> And last but in NO way least, YOU CANNOT WIN THIS DEBATE, UNTIL YOU CAN CITE THE LAW, ARTICLE WITHIN YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, THAT STATES THAT SECESSION IS AN ILLEGAL, OR UNLAWFUL ACT. YOU CONTINUE TO AVOID THE ONLY THING THAT CAN WIN THE DEBATE FOR YOU. CITE THE LAW YANKEE BOY!!!!*
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that that's out of the way...
> 
> If the Articles government was working so well, *why was a convention called to alter it?*  Answer me that; it'll be interesting.
> 
> As for your citation, I say *again:*
> 
> 
> 
> United States Constitution Article IV said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States*; and _*nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States*_, or of any particular State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There.  What in the hell do you think that means?  Did they just write it in there for giggles?
> 
> Now for miscellany:  East Tennessee did in fact overwhelmingly reject secession in both referendums, it did in fact hold a separate convention after the (rigged) June 8th referendum which voted to break away from Tennessee and rejoin the Union, and it was in fact answered with brutal military occupation when it presented its resolutions to the Tennessee legislature.  The whole of the people do in fact have a right to alter their government; since you contend otherwise I can only conclude that you are a statist.  I happen to have my passport, and it says I'm a citizen of the United States, which is entirely correct per the 14th Amendment.  And I haven't been redefining the Constitution; I argued within the compact/contract theory you espouse to show how you're just as wrong within its context as you are under the actual case, but you're too dense to even realize what happened.  Almost nothing you've said is right.
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TwoBeersOneCAn said:
> 
> 
> 
> "All good, though...It'll get sorted one day."
> 
> We can actually agree on that one.  One day, either the last remnants of racists/confederates in the south will die of old age (with each passing generation they lose support among even their own children) or the "South will rise again" only to be smashed by the military.  The first Civil War lasted about four years.  The next one (if it happens) will last about four hours.  You don't have the numbers, you don't have the technology, and you especially don't have the strategy or intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what the greeks said...that's what the romans said...that's what the british said...that's what the french said...that's what the russians said in 1917...and again in the '80's.
> All nations/empires collapse eventually...the more corrupt, the more violent the resistance.
> All it took was 3% of the population willing to fight to beat the best army in the world at the time found this nation...
> Cling to your fantasies of the mighty military crushing citizens....it won't happen, though.
> 
> You aren't a student of history, I see...but your anti southern bias leaks through..
> Collapse, partitioning and reconstruction are the next phases this country will go through...
> 
> Don't be afraid..it's just the natural course of citizens versus corrupt governments...and the gvmts always lose eventually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now *you're* making up numbers.  Roughly 30% of the colonists resisted British rule, and they had the heavy military assistance of the French Empire.  Keep your delusions, though; they're amusing.
Click to expand...


we aren't discussing how many "resisted" (whatever THAT means) british rule...we were talking about how many actually fought...deflection and distractions don't work on me, son...

Go look it up yourself, scooter, that way you'll remember it longer and it'll save you the time of posting "nuh uh" as your standard rebuttal....estimates range from 3 to 16% of the colonists actually had the guts/balls to fight the british...go look it up...


----------



## paperview

White Supremacist trolls who live  in an alternate  reality deserve no respect, nor replies.  

The Civil war itself answered the question of the legality of Secession.


----------



## James Everett

Okay then, show what is illogical about a law that does not exist, hence cannot be violated.
How is it illogical to state that a law that does NOT exist cannot be broken?
Is the Yankee so far gone that he can no longer find logic because words have no set definition any longer,there can somehow exist a union by force and still be considered a union, and not a tyranny? The man in Ohio then was truly married to the three women he abducted and held against their will, after all each did willingly accept a ride from him: Right? The word is really does have several differing definitions? A dog is a cat? A tree is a rock? A State can exist without the sovereign power of the self determination of its citizens? A federal system does exist when the States governments have no representation within the general government? Who is being illogical here?  You are living in an illusion...
*Niccola Machiavelli,.
"...[A]llow them [the conquered] to live under their own laws, taking tribute of them, and creating within the country a government composed of a few who will keep it friendly to you.... A city used to liberty can be more easily held by means of its citizens than in any other way....
"...[T]hey must at least retain the semblance of the old forms; so that it may seem to the people that there has been no change in the institutions, even though in fact they are entirely different from the old ones. For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often even more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are.... [The conqueror should] not wish that the people... should have occasion to regret the loss of any of their old customs...."*
Now you have made an indication that in the evidence posted, my interpretation *"is not logical to that evidence"*
*Please expound!!! What is illogical about my interpretation?
Every YANKEE seems to make gratuitous assertions, yet never backs anything up with factual evidence.*


----------



## Rotagilla

Rogue 9 said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TwoBeersOneCAn said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has been a very interesting thread.  Interesting enough that I quit lurking and made an account to post.  I must say, you guys (with at least one notable exception) are admirable with your sources and knowledge, but I just feel you're going about it the totally wrong way.  You're debating with the assumption that your adversary thinks as a scholar.  He does not; he is an obvious ideologue.  You can tell you're hitting sensitive points because our friend James' progress through this thread.  He initially was quite calm and cordial, but now that he's been proven wrong again and again, his true feelings are coming out.
> 
> James, I am a fan of Occam's Razor.  I won't insult you by asking you if you know what that is, because you have demonstrated yourself to be able to research (your conclusion making progress leaves questions, however).  You claim that the CSA is currently under occupation by the USA, which by the vast majority of American perspectives is untrue.  Which of the following is more likely?
> 
> A. You are correct and about 99.9% of the rest of Americans are too stupid or apathetic to know.
> B. You are incorrectly arguing a dishonest, fringe perspective and 99.9% of of Americans know this and that's why they don't care.
> 
> Which is it?  Are you the smartest person out of 317 million?  Or (Occam's Razor) you're using dishonest research and cherry picking to support your already existing conclusions?
> 
> My conclusion is that you're super mad that black people have rights now and you're willing to bend over backwards to prop up the conditions that allow their subjugation without saying that's why you support those conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you write off southerners as "dishonest" and "fringe"..and then go on to make up random numbers "99.9%" and "317 million" and pretend they support your anti southern bias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not Southerners; just you.
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> The south tried to peacefully and legally withdraw from the union. lincoln wanted war and knew he could provoke the south by invading charleston.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cannon fire is peaceful?  Also, Lincoln didn't invade Charleston (at least, not that early in the war); what the hell are you talking about?
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Northerners didn't want to fight lincolns war..there were draft riots in new york.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And more volunteers than the Army could process, too.
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> The north is where the jim crow laws started because THEY didn't want all these illiterate, unskilled negroes coming to THEIR cities after lincoln "freed" them...
> ....but it's more fun to make stuff up and mock southerners and feign superiority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> [citation needed]
Click to expand...


The south fired on the fort to repel the invasion.
If you'd bother to read history, rather than regurgitate public school nonsense you'd know...I hope others reading this WILL go look for themselves..you continue to rely on emotion and anti southern bias...

Do a search.. "why did lincoln send ships to charleston in 1861"

Here's what the newspapers and the letters and writings of the people actually involved said at the time. This is all researchable; Attempt to deny them at your own risk, son.


*"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?"* ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.


*"Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel"*.... Charles Dickens in a London periodical in December 1861

*"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....".* ..... _London Times_ of 7 Nov 1861

*"Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation"*..... _North American Review_ (Boston October 1862) 

*"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union."* ....._ New Orleans Daily Crescent_ 21 January 1861

*"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow."* .... _Chicago Daily Times_ December 1860

*"At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States."* ..... _NY Times_ 22 March 1861

*"the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...."* .... _Boston Transcript_ 18 March 1861

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*
"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. "*_
Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Gustavus Fox, May 1, 1861

*"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." *~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861.

*"We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it."* ~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861._


----------



## Rotagilla

paperview said:


> White Supremacist trolls who live  in an alternate  reality deserve no respect, nor replies.
> 
> The Civil war itself answered the question of the legality of Secession.



the south tried to legally and peacefully secede...as has been proven repeatedly above...type "nuh uh" all you like..make disparaging comments...mock..call names..do whatever you think it will take to cause a distraction....The facts remain. 

Let's return to proven facts and get away from your personal anti democratic/anti freedom bias and discuss the actual quotes...you managed to cause a distraction and evade that earlier. Why don't you try to refute these quotes and leave your personal bias and prejudices out of it.

lincoln said;


*Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. 
This is a most valuable,— most sacred right—a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. 
Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory as they inhabit.

More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. 

Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones.

A. Lincoln*
in Congress 1848

lincoln's first inaugural address;
March 4, 1861

*Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that --

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.*


_Declaration of independence



When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with *certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.*_


----------



## Rotagilla

TwoBeersOneCAn said:


> Rotty, which is it?  Are you and your friend James the two smartest people in America and almost everyone else is wrong?  Am I in the internet presence of a 200 point IQ?



Why are you trying to change the subject?


----------



## paperview

Rotagilla said:


> ....
> we aren't discussing how many "resisted" (whatever THAT means) british rule...we were talking about how many actually fought....



Yeah, remember how that  *Operation American Spring...*billed as the Second American Revolution!!11!!!   turned out.


Dun dun DUN!


----------



## Rotagilla

paperview said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> we aren't discussing how many "resisted" (whatever THAT means) british rule...we were talking about how many actually fought....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, remember how that  *Operation American Spring...*billed as the Second American Revolution!!11!!!   turned out.
> 
> 
> Dun dun DUN!
Click to expand...


Why are you trying to change the subject now?
Painted into a corner?


----------



## James Everett

paperview said:


> White Supremacist trolls who live  in an alternate  reality deserve no respect, nor replies.
> 
> The Civil war itself answered the question of the legality of Secession.


Paperview, a question is never settled by violence or disregard of law. Someone employes violence to take your property, in violation of law, does not mean your property is his. The former Soviet "Union" though the Balkans, and the Ukraine. etc may have been occupied for a time, the issue was NOT settled.


----------



## James Everett

"Operation Spring"
That was a political party within your own political system.  We are operating outside of YOUR political system. We have no use of marches and protests.


----------



## James Everett

paperview said:


> White Supremacist trolls who live  in an alternate  reality deserve no respect, nor replies.
> 
> The Civil war itself answered the question of the legality of Secession.


Again....I was invited to this message board by one of your own....(Woodrow Major), such invitation does not constitute trolling. Next, you simply continue with your childish mud slinging, and bringing up racism, without facts, or evidence. As they say the guilty dog.........


----------



## Rogue 9

Rotagilla said:


> The south fired on the fort to repel the invasion.
> If you'd bother to read history, rather than regurgitate public school nonsense you'd know...I hope others reading this WILL go look for themselves..you continue to rely on emotion and anti southern bias...
> 
> Do a search.. "why did lincoln send ships to charleston in 1861"


I do read history, and I ask again, what invasion?  Major Anderson's troops were sitting in a federal fort and the ships (that never arrived, I might add) were bound for the same.  No one invaded Charleston.



Rotagilla said:


> Here's what the newspapers and the letters and writings of the people actually involved said at the time. This is all researchable; Attempt to deny them at your own risk, son.
> 
> 
> *"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?"* ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.


Okay, and?  It's the duty of the President to enforce the laws of the Union.  

*


Rotagilla said:



			"Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel"
		
Click to expand...

*


Rotagilla said:


> .... Charles Dickens in a London periodical in December 1861
> 
> *"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....".* ..... _London Times_ of 7 Nov 1861


Britain's government was eager for the United States to falter so that they could resume colonization of the Americas.  That you cite British editorials shows a lot about your opinion of empire.  
*


Rotagilla said:



			"Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation"
		
Click to expand...

*


Rotagilla said:


> ..... _North American Review_ (Boston October 1862)


If slavery was what brought unanimity to the South so that they could have a rebellion, then slavery was the cause of the rebellion.  Not to mention that the Confederate leaders all came right out and said that slavery was the cause of the rebellion (see the OP for numerous citations) and I think they know why they were doing what they did better than some dude in Boston.  
*


Rotagilla said:



			"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union."
		
Click to expand...

*


Rotagilla said:


> ....._ New Orleans Daily Crescent_ 21 January 1861
> 
> *"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow."* .... _Chicago Daily Times_ December 1860
> 
> *"At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States."* ..... _NY Times_ 22 March 1861
> 
> *"the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...."* .... _Boston Transcript_ 18 March 1861


So?  The people doing the seceding know their motives better than some dudes in the North.  

*


Rotagilla said:



			"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. "
		
Click to expand...

*


Rotagilla said:


> _Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Gustavus Fox, May 1, 1861
> 
> *"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." *~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861._



No one made the traitors open fire.  Lincoln did not stand there at the cannons and lay match to powder hole.  
_*


Rotagilla said:



			"We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it."
		
Click to expand...

*


Rotagilla said:



			~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.
		
Click to expand...

_Well, do the archives in Washington tell that tale?  They didn't attack the Charleston batteries because it would have been suicidal; the batteries surrounding Charleston Harbor were designed to repel British battle fleets, which the flotilla of supply ships sent to Sumter were not.  They'd have been sunk with all hands had they tried to enter the harbor.


----------



## James Everett

Rogue 9 said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> The south fired on the fort to repel the invasion.
> If you'd bother to read history, rather than regurgitate public school nonsense you'd know...I hope others reading this WILL go look for themselves..you continue to rely on emotion and anti southern bias...
> 
> Do a search.. "why did lincoln send ships to charleston in 1861"
> 
> 
> 
> I do read history, and I ask again, what invasion?  Major Anderson's troops were sitting in a federal fort and the ships (that never arrived, I might add) were bound for the same.  No one invaded Charleston.
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what the newspapers and the letters and writings of the people actually involved said at the time. This is all researchable; Attempt to deny them at your own risk, son.
> 
> 
> *"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?"* ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, and?  It's the duty of the President to enforce the laws of the Union.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... Charles Dickens in a London periodical in December 1861
> 
> *"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....".* ..... _London Times_ of 7 Nov 1861
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Britain's government was eager for the United States to falter so that they could resume colonization of the Americas.  That you cite British editorials shows a lot about your opinion of empire.
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... _North American Review_ (Boston October 1862)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If slavery was what brought unanimity to the South so that they could have a rebellion, then slavery was the cause of the rebellion.  Not to mention that the Confederate leaders all came right out and said that slavery was the cause of the rebellion (see the OP for numerous citations) and I think they know why they were doing what they did better than some dude in Boston.
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> "They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....._ New Orleans Daily Crescent_ 21 January 1861
> 
> *"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow."* .... _Chicago Daily Times_ December 1860
> 
> *"At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States."* ..... _NY Times_ 22 March 1861
> 
> *"the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...."* .... _Boston Transcript_ 18 March 1861
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?  The people doing the seceding know their motives better than some dudes in the North.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> "You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Gustavus Fox, May 1, 1861
> 
> *"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." *~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one made the traitors open fire.  Lincoln did not stand there at the cannons and lay match to powder hole.
> _*
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> "We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> ~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Well, do the archives in Washington tell that tale?  They didn't attack the Charleston batteries because it would have been suicidal; the batteries surrounding Charleston Harbor were designed to repel British battle fleets, which the flotilla of supply ships sent to Sumter were not.  They'd have been sunk with all hands had they tried to enter the harbor.
Click to expand...

What law was Lincoln enforcing? Cite that law!
What rebellion was there by the Southern States? Cite the law !!
Your position is DEAD in the water, you are adrift without rudder or direction. Cite the law!!!!!!!!


----------



## Rogue 9

James Everett said:


> What law was Lincoln enforcing? Cite that law!
> What rebellion was there by the Southern States? Cite the law !!
> Your position is DEAD in the water, you are adrift without rudder or direction. Cite the law!!!!!!!!


In order, the tariff (in the particular example he brought up) and the war of rebellion they fought against the lawful authority of the United States.  We've already long since established that state-level secession without the consent of Congress or a constitutional amendment is unlawful under the Constitution; that you refuse to read the words of Article IV is not my problem.


----------



## James Everett

Rogue 9 said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> What law was Lincoln enforcing? Cite that law!
> What rebellion was there by the Southern States? Cite the law !!
> Your position is DEAD in the water, you are adrift without rudder or direction. Cite the law!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> In order, the tariff (in the particular example he brought up) and the war of rebellion they fought against the lawful authority of the United States.  We've already long since established that state-level secession without the consent of Congress or a constitutional amendment is unlawful under the Constitution; that you refuse to read the words of Article IV is not my problem.
Click to expand...




Rogue 9 said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> What law was Lincoln enforcing? Cite that law!
> What rebellion was there by the Southern States? Cite the law !!
> Your position is DEAD in the water, you are adrift without rudder or direction. Cite the law!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> In order, the tariff (in the particular example he brought up) and the war of rebellion they fought against the lawful authority of the United States.  We've already long since established that state-level secession without the consent of Congress or a constitutional amendment is unlawful under the Constitution; that you refuse to read the words of Article IV is not my problem.
Click to expand...

Rogue9. I must apologize for my inability to educate you, it is indeed I and I alone who have failed you. I simply cannot seem to find a way to help you understand YOUR own 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution. If this is the case, then I truly do apologize, however, if it is simply that you do understand but are to stubborn to admit your error, then you are only continuing to make a bigger fool of yourself. You have my word that I would never make fun of someone for admitting their error. WE ALL MAKE MISTAKES FROM TIME TO TIME, yet one must be man enough to admit such. Again Article IV section 3 only applies to territories, NOT States. The United States government DOES NOT OWN THE LAND WITHIN A STATE< NOR DOES IT HAVE MUNICIPAL JURISDICTION. Are you stating that you understand the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution better thatn YOUR SCOTUS?
Here in YOUR own SCOTUS OPINION ONCE AGAIN FROM.....
*U.S. Supreme Court*
*POLLARD v. HAGAN, 44 U.S. 212 (1845)*
*44 U.S. 212 (How.)

JOHN POLLARD ET AL., LESSEE, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, 
v. 
JOHN HAGAN ET AL., DEFENDANTS IN ERROR.

January Term, 1845*

*"The shores of navigable waters, and the soils under them, were not granted by the Constitution to the United States, but were reserved to the States respectively, and the new States have the same rights, sovereignty, and jurisdiction over this subject as the original States.

In case you are somehow unaware of the definition of respectively, it means..."INDIVIDUALLY".

The United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a state or elsewhere. Such a power is not only repugnant to the Constitution, but it is inconsistent with the spirit and intention of the deeds of cession."

The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures.

By the 16th clause of the 8th section of the 1st article of the Constitution, power is given to Congress
"to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased, by the consent of the legislature of the State in which the same may be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings."
*

*
Within the District of Columbia, and the other places purchased and used for the purposes above mentioned, the national and municipal powers of government, of every description, are united in the Government of the Union. And these are the only cases within the United States in which all the powers of government are united in a single government, except in the cases already 
Page 44 U. S. 224

mentioned of the temporary territorial governments, and there a local government exists.

Lincoln, and the Northern States fought in REBELLION against the lawful authority of the tenth amendment and the Constitutional limitation on its domain in the 16th clause of the 8th section of the 1st article of the Constitution, power is given to Congress "to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square)"


Please for the sake of your YANKEE brethren, STOP MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF BY DISMISSING THE FACTS!!! 

You have failed once again at citing the law that states that it is unlawful, or illegal for a State to secede from the union.
The 9pm Friday deadline draws nigh......



*


----------



## James Everett

Also, Rogue9, Since there was, nor is a law that states that a State cannot secede from the union, as you have clearly been unable to produce, Lincoln had NO authority to impose a tariff on a foreign country, which is what each State that seceded became at the point of their LEGAL secessions. You must always return to the first cause of the issue.....There was NO LAW that States that a State cannot secede from the union.A law that does NOT exist cannot be violated.


----------



## James Everett

AGAIN.....*16th clause of the 8th section of the 1st article of the Constitution, power is given to Congress "to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square)"
"The United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a state or elsewhere. Such a power is not only repugnant to the Constitution, but it is inconsistent with the spirit and intention of the deeds of cession."*


----------



## Discombobulated

Slavery was obviously the primary cause of the Civil War.   Had there been no slavery in this country there would have been no Civil War.


----------



## Discombobulated

Politicians in Confederate states thought they had the right to secede.......turns out they were wrong about that.


----------



## James Everett

Discombobulated said:


> Slavery was obviously the primary cause of the Civil War.   Had there been no slavery in this country there would have been no Civil War.


Mute point when it comes to the legality of secession. Who is responsible for legalized slavery in America? I know, do you?


----------



## James Everett

Disc


Discombobulated said:


> Politicians in Confederate states thought they had the right to secede.......turns out they were wrong about that.


ombobulated, please cite the law that states that secession from the union is unlawful or illegal. You must do so to prove that they were wrong.


----------



## Discombobulated

James Everett said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was obviously the primary cause of the Civil War.   Had there been no slavery in this country there would have been no Civil War.
> 
> 
> 
> Mute point when it comes to the legality of secession. Who is responsible for legalized slavery in America? I know, do you?
Click to expand...


Perhaps moot but very instructive in dispensing with any superficial diversionary nonsense about tariffs or some other irrelevant horse shit.


----------



## Discombobulated

James Everett said:


> Disc
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Politicians in Confederate states thought they had the right to secede.......turns out they were wrong about that.
> 
> 
> 
> ombobulated, please cite the law that states that secession from the union is unlawful or illegal. You must do so to prove that they were wrong.
Click to expand...


Please feel free to cite the Constitutional mechanisms for secession.


----------



## James Everett

The reasons are irrelevant to the legality. The issue of slavery is complicated, and the Yankee seems to feel he holds some moral high ground, he does not. One only need look at what the U.S. Was doing to the Native American Indian while he was supposedly fighting to free the slaves. All had a part in slavery including the black man himself, as census records show black men who owned black men was increasing almost by double when the census was taken.


----------



## James Everett

James Everett said:


> The reasons are irrelevant to the legality. The issue of slavery is complicated, and the Yankee seems to feel he holds some moral high ground, he does not. One only need look at what the U.S. Was doing to the Native American Indian while he was supposedly fighting to free the slaves. All had a part in slavery including the black man himself, as census records show black men who owned black men was increasing almost by double when the census was taken.


There need not exist a mechanism for secession listed in the 1787/1789 U.s. CONstitution, as the tenth amendment states, that the powers not delegated by the States to the collective are reserved to each individual State, therefore the mechanism is reserved by each State individually.


----------



## Discombobulated

James Everett said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reasons are irrelevant to the legality. The issue of slavery is complicated, and the Yankee seems to feel he holds some moral high ground, he does not. One only need look at what the U.S. Was doing to the Native American Indian while he was supposedly fighting to free the slaves. All had a part in slavery including the black man himself, as census records show black men who owned black men was increasing almost by double when the census was taken.
> 
> 
> 
> There need not exist a mechanism for secession listed in the 1787/1789 U.s. CONstitution, as the tenth amendment states, that the powers not delegated by the States to the collective are reserved to each individual State, therefore the mechanism is reserved by each State individually.
Click to expand...


Which in no way justifies secession.   A mutual agreement between all states would be required to create a formalized legal process for secession from the nation.


----------



## Discombobulated

James Everett said:


> The reasons are irrelevant to the legality. The issue of slavery is complicated, and the Yankee seems to feel he holds some moral high ground, he does not. One only need look at what the U.S. Was doing to the Native American Indian while he was supposedly fighting to free the slaves. All had a part in slavery including the black man himself, as census records show black men who owned black men was increasing almost by double when the census was taken.



Another diversionary argument of moral equivalency.


----------



## James Everett

Again,, that was left to each State individually, not the collective, again see the tenth. If the power to prevent secession was not delegated by the States, they retained it by the agreement itself to themselves individually. That was the agreement. 
As for moral equivelancy, all are equally guilty. Is it your assertion that Southern people are less moral than Northern people? Or one color less than another?


----------



## Discombobulated

James Everett said:


> Again,, that was left to each State individually, not the collective, again see the tenth. If the power to prevent secession was not delegated by the States, they retained it by the agreement itself to themselves individually. That was the agreement.
> As for moral equivelancy, all are equally guilty. Is it your assertion that Southern people are less moral than Northern people? Or one color less than another?



How is that possible when there is no mention of secession anywhere in the Constitution.....explicit or implicit.


----------



## Rotagilla

Rogue 9 said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> The south fired on the fort to repel the invasion.
> If you'd bother to read history, rather than regurgitate public school nonsense you'd know...I hope others reading this WILL go look for themselves..you continue to rely on emotion and anti southern bias...
> 
> Do a search.. "why did lincoln send ships to charleston in 1861"
> 
> 
> 
> I do read history, and I ask again, what invasion?  Major Anderson's troops were sitting in a federal fort and the ships (that never arrived, I might add) were bound for the same.  No one invaded Charleston.
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what the newspapers and the letters and writings of the people actually involved said at the time. This is all researchable; Attempt to deny them at your own risk, son.
> 
> 
> *"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?"* ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, and?  It's the duty of the President to enforce the laws of the Union.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... Charles Dickens in a London periodical in December 1861
> 
> *"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....".* ..... _London Times_ of 7 Nov 1861
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Britain's government was eager for the United States to falter so that they could resume colonization of the Americas.  That you cite British editorials shows a lot about your opinion of empire.
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... _North American Review_ (Boston October 1862)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If slavery was what brought unanimity to the South so that they could have a rebellion, then slavery was the cause of the rebellion.  Not to mention that the Confederate leaders all came right out and said that slavery was the cause of the rebellion (see the OP for numerous citations) and I think they know why they were doing what they did better than some dude in Boston.
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> "They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....._ New Orleans Daily Crescent_ 21 January 1861
> 
> *"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow."* .... _Chicago Daily Times_ December 1860
> 
> *"At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States."* ..... _NY Times_ 22 March 1861
> 
> *"the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...."* .... _Boston Transcript_ 18 March 1861
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?  The people doing the seceding know their motives better than some dudes in the North.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> "You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Gustavus Fox, May 1, 1861
> 
> *"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." *~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one made the traitors open fire.  Lincoln did not stand there at the cannons and lay match to powder hole.
> _*
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> "We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> ~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Well, do the archives in Washington tell that tale?  They didn't attack the Charleston batteries because it would have been suicidal; the batteries surrounding Charleston Harbor were designed to repel British battle fleets, which the flotilla of supply ships sent to Sumter were not.  They'd have been sunk with all hands had they tried to enter the harbor.
Click to expand...




Rogue 9 said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> The south fired on the fort to repel the invasion.
> If you'd bother to read history, rather than regurgitate public school nonsense you'd know...I hope others reading this WILL go look for themselves..you continue to rely on emotion and anti southern bias...
> 
> Do a search.. "why did lincoln send ships to charleston in 1861"
> 
> 
> 
> I do read history, and I ask again, what invasion?  Major Anderson's troops were sitting in a federal fort and the ships (that never arrived, I might add) were bound for the same.  No one invaded Charleston.
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what the newspapers and the letters and writings of the people actually involved said at the time. This is all researchable; Attempt to deny them at your own risk, son.
> 
> 
> *"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?"* ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, and?  It's the duty of the President to enforce the laws of the Union.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... Charles Dickens in a London periodical in December 1861
> 
> *"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....".* ..... _London Times_ of 7 Nov 1861
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Britain's government was eager for the United States to falter so that they could resume colonization of the Americas.  That you cite British editorials shows a lot about your opinion of empire.
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... _North American Review_ (Boston October 1862)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If slavery was what brought unanimity to the South so that they could have a rebellion, then slavery was the cause of the rebellion.  Not to mention that the Confederate leaders all came right out and said that slavery was the cause of the rebellion (see the OP for numerous citations) and I think they know why they were doing what they did better than some dude in Boston.
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> "They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....._ New Orleans Daily Crescent_ 21 January 1861
> 
> *"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow."* .... _Chicago Daily Times_ December 1860
> 
> *"At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States."* ..... _NY Times_ 22 March 1861
> 
> *"the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...."* .... _Boston Transcript_ 18 March 1861
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?  The people doing the seceding know their motives better than some dudes in the North.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> "You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Gustavus Fox, May 1, 1861
> 
> *"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." *~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one made the traitors open fire.  Lincoln did not stand there at the cannons and lay match to powder hole.
> _*
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> "We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> ~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Well, do the archives in Washington tell that tale?  They didn't attack the Charleston batteries because it would have been suicidal; the batteries surrounding Charleston Harbor were designed to repel British battle fleets, which the flotilla of supply ships sent to Sumter were not.  They'd have been sunk with all hands had they tried to enter the harbor.
Click to expand...



LMAO...Nice try but no one is fooled.

I give the actual quotes, date and publication by people actually involved in the situation...and your best response is "So?"..or outright denial of proven, established facts...

Those people's words aren't open to your revisionist reinterpretation. You have no standing to deny any of them or parse words or attempt semantic distortions. You refuse to address them honestly and instead try to use them as props and excuses to demean or diminish the truth.
I doubt any honest people who have read this were fooled or impressed by your misrepresentations and attempts to deceive.

Those words and articles are HISTORICAL ACCOUNTS of events...You, on the other hand, offer NOTHING other than "nuh uh"..or "they deserved it"..


I made my points and supported them. 
It's clear that your only purpose here is to display your anti southern bias and prejudices....so this discussion is over due to gross, overt dishonesty on your part.


----------



## James Everett

Discombobulated said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again,, that was left to each State individually, not the collective, again see the tenth. If the power to prevent secession was not delegated by the States, they retained it by the agreement itself to themselves individually. That was the agreement.
> As for moral equivelancy, all are equally guilty. Is it your assertion that Southern people are less moral than Northern people? Or one color less than another?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that possible when there is no mention of secession anywhere in the Constitution.....explicit or implicit.
Click to expand...

Discombobulated,
That is the very purpose of the tenth amendment, Again.....
*Amendment X*
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
It is impossible to enumerate every single power that is reserved to each State individually, or to enumerate every power that the United States, (the collective) could hold, therefore all power not delegated is retained by each State individually. 
That is all the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution is, is an agreement in which the States have come together to establish among themselves, a central body to handle certain explicit duties in union, all other duties, and powers are their own business, and none of that of the collective together in union. Its called sovereignty, and every sovereign power other than the explicit powers delegated and enumerated are reserved to each State individually.
*"To the States, respectively, or to the people" have been reserved "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States." Each State is a complete sovereignty within the sphere of its reserved powers. The Government of the Union, acting within the sphere of its delegated authority, is also a complete sovereignty.*
*To the Government of the United States has been intrusted the exclusive management of our foreign affairs. Beyond that it wields a few general enumerated powers. It does not force reform on the States. It leaves individuals, over whom it casts its protecting influence, entirely free to improve their own condition by the legitimate exercise of all their mental and physical powers.*


----------



## James Everett

Rotagilla said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> The south fired on the fort to repel the invasion.
> If you'd bother to read history, rather than regurgitate public school nonsense you'd know...I hope others reading this WILL go look for themselves..you continue to rely on emotion and anti southern bias...
> 
> Do a search.. "why did lincoln send ships to charleston in 1861"
> 
> 
> 
> I do read history, and I ask again, what invasion?  Major Anderson's troops were sitting in a federal fort and the ships (that never arrived, I might add) were bound for the same.  No one invaded Charleston.
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what the newspapers and the letters and writings of the people actually involved said at the time. This is all researchable; Attempt to deny them at your own risk, son.
> 
> 
> *"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?"* ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, and?  It's the duty of the President to enforce the laws of the Union.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... Charles Dickens in a London periodical in December 1861
> 
> *"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....".* ..... _London Times_ of 7 Nov 1861
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Britain's government was eager for the United States to falter so that they could resume colonization of the Americas.  That you cite British editorials shows a lot about your opinion of empire.
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... _North American Review_ (Boston October 1862)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If slavery was what brought unanimity to the South so that they could have a rebellion, then slavery was the cause of the rebellion.  Not to mention that the Confederate leaders all came right out and said that slavery was the cause of the rebellion (see the OP for numerous citations) and I think they know why they were doing what they did better than some dude in Boston.
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> "They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....._ New Orleans Daily Crescent_ 21 January 1861
> 
> *"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow."* .... _Chicago Daily Times_ December 1860
> 
> *"At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States."* ..... _NY Times_ 22 March 1861
> 
> *"the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...."* .... _Boston Transcript_ 18 March 1861
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?  The people doing the seceding know their motives better than some dudes in the North.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> "You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Gustavus Fox, May 1, 1861
> 
> *"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." *~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one made the traitors open fire.  Lincoln did not stand there at the cannons and lay match to powder hole.
> _*
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> "We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> ~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Well, do the archives in Washington tell that tale?  They didn't attack the Charleston batteries because it would have been suicidal; the batteries surrounding Charleston Harbor were designed to repel British battle fleets, which the flotilla of supply ships sent to Sumter were not.  They'd have been sunk with all hands had they tried to enter the harbor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> The south fired on the fort to repel the invasion.
> If you'd bother to read history, rather than regurgitate public school nonsense you'd know...I hope others reading this WILL go look for themselves..you continue to rely on emotion and anti southern bias...
> 
> Do a search.. "why did lincoln send ships to charleston in 1861"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do read history, and I ask again, what invasion?  Major Anderson's troops were sitting in a federal fort and the ships (that never arrived, I might add) were bound for the same.  No one invaded Charleston.
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what the newspapers and the letters and writings of the people actually involved said at the time. This is all researchable; Attempt to deny them at your own risk, son.
> 
> 
> *"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?"* ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, and?  It's the duty of the President to enforce the laws of the Union.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... Charles Dickens in a London periodical in December 1861
> 
> *"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....".* ..... _London Times_ of 7 Nov 1861
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Britain's government was eager for the United States to falter so that they could resume colonization of the Americas.  That you cite British editorials shows a lot about your opinion of empire.
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... _North American Review_ (Boston October 1862)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If slavery was what brought unanimity to the South so that they could have a rebellion, then slavery was the cause of the rebellion.  Not to mention that the Confederate leaders all came right out and said that slavery was the cause of the rebellion (see the OP for numerous citations) and I think they know why they were doing what they did better than some dude in Boston.
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> "They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....._ New Orleans Daily Crescent_ 21 January 1861
> 
> *"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow."* .... _Chicago Daily Times_ December 1860
> 
> *"At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States."* ..... _NY Times_ 22 March 1861
> 
> *"the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...."* .... _Boston Transcript_ 18 March 1861
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?  The people doing the seceding know their motives better than some dudes in the North.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> "You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Gustavus Fox, May 1, 1861
> 
> *"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." *~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one made the traitors open fire.  Lincoln did not stand there at the cannons and lay match to powder hole.
> _*
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> "We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> ~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Well, do the archives in Washington tell that tale?  They didn't attack the Charleston batteries because it would have been suicidal; the batteries surrounding Charleston Harbor were designed to repel British battle fleets, which the flotilla of supply ships sent to Sumter were not.  They'd have been sunk with all hands had they tried to enter the harbor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO...Nice try but no one is fooled.
> 
> I give the actual quotes, date and publication by people actually involved in the situation...and your best response is "So?"..or outright denial of proven, established facts...
> 
> Those people's words aren't open to your revisionist reinterpretation. You have no standing to deny any of them or parse words or attempt semantic distortions. You refuse to address them honestly and instead try to use them as props and excuses to demean or diminish the truth.
> I doubt any honest people who have read this were fooled or impressed by your misrepresentations and attempts to deceive.
> 
> Those words and articles are HISTORICAL ACCOUNTS of events...You, on the other hand, offer NOTHING other than "nuh uh"..or "they deserved it"..
> 
> 
> I made my points and supported them.
> It's clear that your only purpose here is to display your anti southern bias and prejudices....so this discussion is over due to gross, overt dishonesty on your part.
Click to expand...


----------



## Discombobulated

James Everett said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again,, that was left to each State individually, not the collective, again see the tenth. If the power to prevent secession was not delegated by the States, they retained it by the agreement itself to themselves individually. That was the agreement.
> As for moral equivelancy, all are equally guilty. Is it your assertion that Southern people are less moral than Northern people? Or one color less than another?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that possible when there is no mention of secession anywhere in the Constitution.....explicit or implicit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Discombobulated,
> That is the very purpose of the tenth amendment, Again.....
> *Amendment X*
> "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
> It is impossible to enumerate every single power that is reserved to each State individually, or to enumerate every power that the United States, (the collective) could hold, therefore all power not delegated is retained by each State individually.
> That is all the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution is, is an agreement in which the States have come together to establish among themselves, a central body to handle certain explicit duties in union, all other duties, and powers are their own business, and none of that of the collective together in union. Its called sovereignty, and every sovereign power other than the explicit powers delegated and enumerated are reserved to each State individually.
> *"To the States, respectively, or to the people" have been reserved "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States." Each State is a complete sovereignty within the sphere of its reserved powers. The Government of the Union, acting within the sphere of its delegated authority, is also a complete sovereignty.
> To the Government of the United States has been intrusted the exclusive management of our foreign affairs. Beyond that it wields a few general enumerated powers. It does not force reform on the States. It leaves individuals, over whom it casts its protecting influence, entirely free to improve their own condition by the legitimate exercise of all their mental and physical powers.*
Click to expand...


Not even a vague reference to secession.


----------



## Rotagilla

Discombobulated said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again,, that was left to each State individually, not the collective, again see the tenth. If the power to prevent secession was not delegated by the States, they retained it by the agreement itself to themselves individually. That was the agreement.
> As for moral equivelancy, all are equally guilty. Is it your assertion that Southern people are less moral than Northern people? Or one color less than another?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that possible when there is no mention of secession anywhere in the Constitution.....explicit or implicit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Discombobulated,
> That is the very purpose of the tenth amendment, Again.....
> *Amendment X*
> "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
> It is impossible to enumerate every single power that is reserved to each State individually, or to enumerate every power that the United States, (the collective) could hold, therefore all power not delegated is retained by each State individually.
> That is all the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution is, is an agreement in which the States have come together to establish among themselves, a central body to handle certain explicit duties in union, all other duties, and powers are their own business, and none of that of the collective together in union. Its called sovereignty, and every sovereign power other than the explicit powers delegated and enumerated are reserved to each State individually.
> *"To the States, respectively, or to the people" have been reserved "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States." Each State is a complete sovereignty within the sphere of its reserved powers. The Government of the Union, acting within the sphere of its delegated authority, is also a complete sovereignty.
> To the Government of the United States has been intrusted the exclusive management of our foreign affairs. Beyond that it wields a few general enumerated powers. It does not force reform on the States. It leaves individuals, over whom it casts its protecting influence, entirely free to improve their own condition by the legitimate exercise of all their mental and physical powers.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not even a vague reference to secession.
Click to expand...


So?
Secession wasn't illegal..and (arguably) it isn't now.


----------



## Discombobulated

Rotagilla said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again,, that was left to each State individually, not the collective, again see the tenth. If the power to prevent secession was not delegated by the States, they retained it by the agreement itself to themselves individually. That was the agreement.
> As for moral equivelancy, all are equally guilty. Is it your assertion that Southern people are less moral than Northern people? Or one color less than another?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that possible when there is no mention of secession anywhere in the Constitution.....explicit or implicit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Discombobulated,
> That is the very purpose of the tenth amendment, Again.....
> *Amendment X*
> "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
> It is impossible to enumerate every single power that is reserved to each State individually, or to enumerate every power that the United States, (the collective) could hold, therefore all power not delegated is retained by each State individually.
> That is all the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution is, is an agreement in which the States have come together to establish among themselves, a central body to handle certain explicit duties in union, all other duties, and powers are their own business, and none of that of the collective together in union. Its called sovereignty, and every sovereign power other than the explicit powers delegated and enumerated are reserved to each State individually.
> *"To the States, respectively, or to the people" have been reserved "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States." Each State is a complete sovereignty within the sphere of its reserved powers. The Government of the Union, acting within the sphere of its delegated authority, is also a complete sovereignty.
> To the Government of the United States has been intrusted the exclusive management of our foreign affairs. Beyond that it wields a few general enumerated powers. It does not force reform on the States. It leaves individuals, over whom it casts its protecting influence, entirely free to improve their own condition by the legitimate exercise of all their mental and physical powers.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not even a vague reference to secession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?
> Secession wasn't illegal..and (arguably) it isn't now.
Click to expand...

Wrong again.


----------



## Rotagilla

Discombobulated said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again,, that was left to each State individually, not the collective, again see the tenth. If the power to prevent secession was not delegated by the States, they retained it by the agreement itself to themselves individually. That was the agreement.
> As for moral equivelancy, all are equally guilty. Is it your assertion that Southern people are less moral than Northern people? Or one color less than another?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that possible when there is no mention of secession anywhere in the Constitution.....explicit or implicit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Discombobulated,
> That is the very purpose of the tenth amendment, Again.....
> *Amendment X*
> "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
> It is impossible to enumerate every single power that is reserved to each State individually, or to enumerate every power that the United States, (the collective) could hold, therefore all power not delegated is retained by each State individually.
> That is all the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution is, is an agreement in which the States have come together to establish among themselves, a central body to handle certain explicit duties in union, all other duties, and powers are their own business, and none of that of the collective together in union. Its called sovereignty, and every sovereign power other than the explicit powers delegated and enumerated are reserved to each State individually.
> *"To the States, respectively, or to the people" have been reserved "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States." Each State is a complete sovereignty within the sphere of its reserved powers. The Government of the Union, acting within the sphere of its delegated authority, is also a complete sovereignty.
> To the Government of the United States has been intrusted the exclusive management of our foreign affairs. Beyond that it wields a few general enumerated powers. It does not force reform on the States. It leaves individuals, over whom it casts its protecting influence, entirely free to improve their own condition by the legitimate exercise of all their mental and physical powers.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not even a vague reference to secession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?
> Secession wasn't illegal..and (arguably) it isn't now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again.
Click to expand...


Again? I haven't been wrong yet and I'm not now.
Secession wasn't (and isn't) illegal.

...besides, it's not really relevant anyway....in the real world, when a group of people democratically decide to withdraw from an oppressive/corrupt government and form their own nation, they don't ask "permission"....


----------



## James Everett

Exa


Discombobulated said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again,, that was left to each State individually, not the collective, again see the tenth. If the power to prevent secession was not delegated by the States, they retained it by the agreement itself to themselves individually. That was the agreement.
> As for moral equivelancy, all are equally guilty. Is it your assertion that Southern people are less moral than Northern people? Or one color less than another?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that possible when there is no mention of secession anywhere in the Constitution.....explicit or implicit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Discombobulated,
> That is the very purpose of the tenth amendment, Again.....
> *Amendment X*
> "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
> It is impossible to enumerate every single power that is reserved to each State individually, or to enumerate every power that the United States, (the collective) could hold, therefore all power not delegated is retained by each State individually.
> That is all the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution is, is an agreement in which the States have come together to establish among themselves, a central body to handle certain explicit duties in union, all other duties, and powers are their own business, and none of that of the collective together in union. Its called sovereignty, and every sovereign power other than the explicit powers delegated and enumerated are reserved to each State individually.
> *"To the States, respectively, or to the people" have been reserved "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States." Each State is a complete sovereignty within the sphere of its reserved powers. The Government of the Union, acting within the sphere of its delegated authority, is also a complete sovereignty.
> To the Government of the United States has been intrusted the exclusive management of our foreign affairs. Beyond that it wields a few general enumerated powers. It does not force reform on the States. It leaves individuals, over whom it casts its protecting influence, entirely free to improve their own condition by the legitimate exercise of all their mental and physical powers.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not even a vague reference to secession.[/QUOTE
> Exactly , discombobulated!!!! The fact that it is NOT means that it is a power reserved by each State individually. The States are the authority, the general govt was and is not party to the  U.S. CONstitution between the State hovers, it is only a product thereof. It does not own the States Orr their respective lands within.
Click to expand...


----------



## Discombobulated

Rotagilla said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is that possible when there is no mention of secession anywhere in the Constitution.....explicit or implicit.
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated,
> That is the very purpose of the tenth amendment, Again.....
> *Amendment X*
> "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
> It is impossible to enumerate every single power that is reserved to each State individually, or to enumerate every power that the United States, (the collective) could hold, therefore all power not delegated is retained by each State individually.
> That is all the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution is, is an agreement in which the States have come together to establish among themselves, a central body to handle certain explicit duties in union, all other duties, and powers are their own business, and none of that of the collective together in union. Its called sovereignty, and every sovereign power other than the explicit powers delegated and enumerated are reserved to each State individually.
> *"To the States, respectively, or to the people" have been reserved "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States." Each State is a complete sovereignty within the sphere of its reserved powers. The Government of the Union, acting within the sphere of its delegated authority, is also a complete sovereignty.
> To the Government of the United States has been intrusted the exclusive management of our foreign affairs. Beyond that it wields a few general enumerated powers. It does not force reform on the States. It leaves individuals, over whom it casts its protecting influence, entirely free to improve their own condition by the legitimate exercise of all their mental and physical powers.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not even a vague reference to secession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?
> Secession wasn't illegal..and (arguably) it isn't now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again? I haven't been wrong yet and I'm not now.
> Secession wasn't (and isn't) illegal.
> 
> ...besides, it's not really relevant anyway....in the real world, when a group of people democratically decide to withdraw from an oppressive/corrupt government and form their own nation, they don't ask "permission"....
Click to expand...


I'll explain it so even you can understand.    The temporary residents of any individual state will never have my permission to dismember my country.


----------



## Rotagilla

Discombobulated said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated,
> That is the very purpose of the tenth amendment, Again.....
> *Amendment X*
> "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
> It is impossible to enumerate every single power that is reserved to each State individually, or to enumerate every power that the United States, (the collective) could hold, therefore all power not delegated is retained by each State individually.
> That is all the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution is, is an agreement in which the States have come together to establish among themselves, a central body to handle certain explicit duties in union, all other duties, and powers are their own business, and none of that of the collective together in union. Its called sovereignty, and every sovereign power other than the explicit powers delegated and enumerated are reserved to each State individually.
> *"To the States, respectively, or to the people" have been reserved "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States." Each State is a complete sovereignty within the sphere of its reserved powers. The Government of the Union, acting within the sphere of its delegated authority, is also a complete sovereignty.
> To the Government of the United States has been intrusted the exclusive management of our foreign affairs. Beyond that it wields a few general enumerated powers. It does not force reform on the States. It leaves individuals, over whom it casts its protecting influence, entirely free to improve their own condition by the legitimate exercise of all their mental and physical powers.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not even a vague reference to secession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?
> Secession wasn't illegal..and (arguably) it isn't now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again? I haven't been wrong yet and I'm not now.
> Secession wasn't (and isn't) illegal.
> 
> ...besides, it's not really relevant anyway....in the real world, when a group of people democratically decide to withdraw from an oppressive/corrupt government and form their own nation, they don't ask "permission"....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll explain it so even you can understand.    The temporary residents of any individual state will never have my permission to dismember my country.
Click to expand...


That's what the british said, too...We didn't ask their permission either.


----------



## Discombobulated

Rotagilla said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not even a vague reference to secession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So?
> Secession wasn't illegal..and (arguably) it isn't now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again? I haven't been wrong yet and I'm not now.
> Secession wasn't (and isn't) illegal.
> 
> ...besides, it's not really relevant anyway....in the real world, when a group of people democratically decide to withdraw from an oppressive/corrupt government and form their own nation, they don't ask "permission"....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll explain it so even you can understand.    The temporary residents of any individual state will never have my permission to dismember my country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what the british said, too...We didn't ask their permission either.
Click to expand...


Not even remotely comparable.


----------



## James Everett

Discombobulated said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> So?
> Secession wasn't illegal..and (arguably) it isn't now.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again? I haven't been wrong yet and I'm not now.
> Secession wasn't (and isn't) illegal.
> 
> ...besides, it's not really relevant anyway....in the real world, when a group of people democratically decide to withdraw from an oppressive/corrupt government and form their own nation, they don't ask "permission"....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll explain it so even you can understand.    The temporary residents of any individual state will never have my permission to dismember my country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what the british said, too...We didn't ask their permission either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not even remotely comparable.
Click to expand...

"Your country"???? It's not your country, it's a union if States, hence "The United States". The union remains a union, albeit smaller when a State secedes from it as a member to that union. You misunderstand the very foundation.


----------



## Discombobulated

James Everett said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again? I haven't been wrong yet and I'm not now.
> Secession wasn't (and isn't) illegal.
> 
> ...besides, it's not really relevant anyway....in the real world, when a group of people democratically decide to withdraw from an oppressive/corrupt government and form their own nation, they don't ask "permission"....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll explain it so even you can understand.    The temporary residents of any individual state will never have my permission to dismember my country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what the british said, too...We didn't ask their permission either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not even remotely comparable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Your country"???? It's not your country, it's a union if States, hence "The United States". The union remains a union, albeit smaller when a State secedes from it as a member to that union. You misunderstand the very foundation.
Click to expand...


Where ever you live that's my country too.


----------



## James Everett

Discombobulated said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again? I haven't been wrong yet and I'm not now.
> Secession wasn't (and isn't) illegal.
> 
> ...besides, it's not really relevant anyway....in the real world, when a group of people democratically decide to withdraw from an oppressive/corrupt government and form their own nation, they don't ask "permission"....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll explain it so even you can understand.    The temporary residents of any individual state will never have my permission to dismember my country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what the british said, too...We didn't ask their permission either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not even remotely comparable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Your country"???? It's not your country, it's a union if States, hence "The United States". The union remains a union, albeit smaller when a State secedes from it as a member to that union. You misunderstand the very foundation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where ever you live that's my country too.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, so if I live in the Ukraine that would be YOUR country to? You are funny.


----------



## Rotagilla

Discombobulated said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> So?
> Secession wasn't illegal..and (arguably) it isn't now.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again? I haven't been wrong yet and I'm not now.
> Secession wasn't (and isn't) illegal.
> 
> ...besides, it's not really relevant anyway....in the real world, when a group of people democratically decide to withdraw from an oppressive/corrupt government and form their own nation, they don't ask "permission"....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll explain it so even you can understand.    The temporary residents of any individual state will never have my permission to dismember my country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what the british said, too...We didn't ask their permission either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not even remotely comparable.
Click to expand...


Really?
The colonies didn't secede from britain? the british didn't attack us?  We're still subjects of the queen?
Are you sure?

_when a group of people democratically decide to withdraw from an oppressive/corrupt government and form their own nation, they don't ask "permission"...._


----------



## Discombobulated

Rotagilla said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again? I haven't been wrong yet and I'm not now.
> Secession wasn't (and isn't) illegal.
> 
> ...besides, it's not really relevant anyway....in the real world, when a group of people democratically decide to withdraw from an oppressive/corrupt government and form their own nation, they don't ask "permission"....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll explain it so even you can understand.    The temporary residents of any individual state will never have my permission to dismember my country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what the british said, too...We didn't ask their permission either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not even remotely comparable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> The colonies didn't secede from britain? the british didn't attack us?  We're still subjects of the queen?
> Are you sure?
> 
> _when a group of people democratically decide to withdraw from an oppressive/corrupt government and form their own nation, they don't ask "permission"...._
Click to expand...


They didn't achieve independence through any legal means, they fought a revolution.   And that's what states will have to do if they really want to be sovereign nations.   Oh wait.....that's right, they already tried that.


----------



## Discombobulated

James Everett said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll explain it so even you can understand.    The temporary residents of any individual state will never have my permission to dismember my country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what the british said, too...We didn't ask their permission either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not even remotely comparable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Your country"???? It's not your country, it's a union if States, hence "The United States". The union remains a union, albeit smaller when a State secedes from it as a member to that union. You misunderstand the very foundation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where ever you live that's my country too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmmm, so if I live in the Ukraine that would be YOUR country to? You are funny.
Click to expand...


If you live in the Ukraine you've got enough problems already.


----------



## James Everett

Discombobulated said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what the british said, too...We didn't ask their permission either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not even remotely comparable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Your country"???? It's not your country, it's a union if States, hence "The United States". The union remains a union, albeit smaller when a State secedes from it as a member to that union. You misunderstand the very foundation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where ever you live that's my country too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmmm, so if I live in the Ukraine that would be YOUR country to? You are funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you live in the Ukraine you've got enough problems already.
Click to expand...

Sir, The Southern Confederate States did secede via their lawful authority, for the past 150 years they have been under the illegal occupation of the U.S.  suffered colonization against international law and continue such violation. The states that were occupied by Russia forming the former Soviet Union, regained their freedom when it collapsed, we will see the same  soon enough, this is why we continue moving forward with the registration and restoration process. You can learn of our project and progress at CSAgov. Org


----------



## Discombobulated

James Everett said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not even remotely comparable.
> 
> 
> 
> "Your country"???? It's not your country, it's a union if States, hence "The United States". The union remains a union, albeit smaller when a State secedes from it as a member to that union. You misunderstand the very foundation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where ever you live that's my country too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmmm, so if I live in the Ukraine that would be YOUR country to? You are funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you live in the Ukraine you've got enough problems already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sir, The Southern Confederate States did secede via their lawful authority, for the past 150 years they have been under the illegal occupation of the U.S.  suffered colonization against international law and continue such violation. The states that were occupied by Russia forming the former Soviet Union, regained their freedom when it collapsed, we will see the same  soon enough, this is why we continue moving forward with the registration and restoration process. You can learn of our project and progress at CSAgov. Org
Click to expand...


I guess it's just unfortunate for Confederates that the Supreme Court of the United States of America didn't support their view.   Because that's who determines what's constitutional or not, the Constitution was never legitimately subject to the interpretations of a bunch of politicians who didn't want to give up their slaves.


----------



## Rotagilla

Discombobulated said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again? I haven't been wrong yet and I'm not now.
> Secession wasn't (and isn't) illegal.
> 
> ...besides, it's not really relevant anyway....in the real world, when a group of people democratically decide to withdraw from an oppressive/corrupt government and form their own nation, they don't ask "permission"....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll explain it so even you can understand.    The temporary residents of any individual state will never have my permission to dismember my country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what the british said, too...We didn't ask their permission either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not even remotely comparable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> The colonies didn't secede from britain? the british didn't attack us?  We're still subjects of the queen?
> Are you sure?
> 
> _when a group of people democratically decide to withdraw from an oppressive/corrupt government and form their own nation, they don't ask "permission"...._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't achieve independence through any legal means, they fought a revolution.   And that's what states will have to do if they really want to be sovereign nations.   Oh wait.....that's right, they already tried that.
Click to expand...


They sent a declaratioon of independence to king george.
There didn't HAVE to be a revolution...but the king thought it was ok to kill people who want to peacefully and democratically withdraw and form their own country. 

lincoln thought that way, too.

It'll be different next time. After the collapse and partitioning we'll correct the problems that caused the collapse and move on from there.


----------



## Discombobulated

Rotagilla said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll explain it so even you can understand.    The temporary residents of any individual state will never have my permission to dismember my country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what the british said, too...We didn't ask their permission either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not even remotely comparable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> The colonies didn't secede from britain? the british didn't attack us?  We're still subjects of the queen?
> Are you sure?
> 
> _when a group of people democratically decide to withdraw from an oppressive/corrupt government and form their own nation, they don't ask "permission"...._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't achieve independence through any legal means, they fought a revolution.   And that's what states will have to do if they really want to be sovereign nations.   Oh wait.....that's right, they already tried that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They sent a declaratioon of independence to king george.
> There didn't HAVE to be a revolution...but the king thought it was ok to kill people who want to peacefully and democratically withdraw and form their own country.
> 
> lincoln thought that way, too.
> 
> It'll be different next time. After the collapse and partitioning we'll correct the problems that caused the collapse and move on from there.
Click to expand...


Good luck with your whole collapse theory.  People who talk like you are just fucking traitors as far as I'm concerned......talking traitors.   Talking traitors rarely do any actual fighting,  so I think we have very little to be concerned about there.


----------



## Rotagilla

Discombobulated said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Your country"???? It's not your country, it's a union if States, hence "The United States". The union remains a union, albeit smaller when a State secedes from it as a member to that union. You misunderstand the very foundation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where ever you live that's my country too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmmm, so if I live in the Ukraine that would be YOUR country to? You are funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you live in the Ukraine you've got enough problems already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sir, The Southern Confederate States did secede via their lawful authority, for the past 150 years they have been under the illegal occupation of the U.S.  suffered colonization against international law and continue such violation. The states that were occupied by Russia forming the former Soviet Union, regained their freedom when it collapsed, we will see the same  soon enough, this is why we continue moving forward with the registration and restoration process. You can learn of our project and progress at CSAgov. Org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess it's just unfortunate for Confederates that the Supreme Court of the United States of America didn't support their view.   Because that's who determines what's constitutional or not, the Constitution was never legitimately subject to the interpretations of a bunch of politicians who didn't want to give up their slaves.
Click to expand...




Well, son..that's not exactly true. Chief Justice Roger Taney favored allowing the south to secede...but it doesn't matter...the south had the legal right to secede and didn't need the supreme court to confirm or deny....Lincoln had to have his war, though and invaded the south
*

Recommended Reading:Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Secession, and the President's War Powers*, by James F. Simon (Simon & Schuster). *Publishers Weekly:* This surprisingly taut and gripping book by NYU law professor Simon (What Kind of Nation) examines the limits of presidential prerogative during the Civil War. 

*Lincoln and Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney saw eye to eye on certain matters; both, for example, disliked slavery. But beginning in 1857, when Lincoln criticized Taney's decision in the Dred Scott case, the pair began to spar. They diverged further once Lincoln became president when Taney insisted that secession was constitutional and preferable to bloodshed, and blamed the Civil War on Lincoln. In 1861, Taney argued that Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was illegal. This holding was, Simon argues, "a clarion call for the president to respect the civil liberties of American citizens." Continued below...

In an 1862 group of cases, Taney joined a minority opinion that Lincoln lacked the authority to order the seizure of Southern ships. Had Taney had the chance, suggests Simon, he would have declared the Emancipation Proclamation unconstitutional; he and Lincoln agreed that the Constitution left slavery up to individual states, but Lincoln argued that the president's war powers trumped states' rights. Simon's focus on Lincoln and Taney makes for a dramatic, charged narrative—and the focus on presidential war powers makes this historical study extremely timely.*





The 10th Amendment states:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. 

Secession is not prohibited anywhere in the constitution and was considered an obvious right of all States until after the War for Southern Independence. 
Because the Constitution does not prohibit secession, it is therefore a power delegated to the States. 

Remember that the States are independent and sovereign, and they created the Union, not the other way around. 
The USA is simply an agent for the individual States. Without the threat of leaving, the States are completely powerless to the Federal Government. 

Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it." 

Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'" 

At Virginia's ratification convention, the delegates said, "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression." 

In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what "the people" meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong." 

In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states. 

On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Maryland Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel said, "Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty." 

The northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace. 

Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South's right to secede.

New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861." 

Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful could produce nothing but evil -- evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content."

The New York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go." 

In Federalist Paper 45, Madison guaranteed: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." 

The South seceded because of Washington's encroachment on that vision. Today, it's worse. Turn Madison's vision on its head, and you have today's America.


----------



## Discombobulated

Rotagilla said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where ever you live that's my country too.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, so if I live in the Ukraine that would be YOUR country to? You are funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you live in the Ukraine you've got enough problems already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sir, The Southern Confederate States did secede via their lawful authority, for the past 150 years they have been under the illegal occupation of the U.S.  suffered colonization against international law and continue such violation. The states that were occupied by Russia forming the former Soviet Union, regained their freedom when it collapsed, we will see the same  soon enough, this is why we continue moving forward with the registration and restoration process. You can learn of our project and progress at CSAgov. Org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess it's just unfortunate for Confederates that the Supreme Court of the United States of America didn't support their view.   Because that's who determines what's constitutional or not, the Constitution was never legitimately subject to the interpretations of a bunch of politicians who didn't want to give up their slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, son..that's not exactly true. Chief Justice Roger Taney favored allowing the south to secede...but it doesn't matter...the south had the legal right to secede and didn't need the supreme court to confirm or deny....Lincoln had to have his war, though and invaded the south
> *
> 
> Recommended Reading:Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Secession, and the President's War Powers*, by James F. Simon (Simon & Schuster). *Publishers Weekly:* This surprisingly taut and gripping book by NYU law professor Simon (What Kind of Nation) examines the limits of presidential prerogative during the Civil War.
> 
> *Lincoln and Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney saw eye to eye on certain matters; both, for example, disliked slavery. But beginning in 1857, when Lincoln criticized Taney's decision in the Dred Scott case, the pair began to spar. They diverged further once Lincoln became president when Taney insisted that secession was constitutional and preferable to bloodshed, and blamed the Civil War on Lincoln. In 1861, Taney argued that Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was illegal. This holding was, Simon argues, "a clarion call for the president to respect the civil liberties of American citizens." Continued below...
> 
> In an 1862 group of cases, Taney joined a minority opinion that Lincoln lacked the authority to order the seizure of Southern ships. Had Taney had the chance, suggests Simon, he would have declared the Emancipation Proclamation unconstitutional; he and Lincoln agreed that the Constitution left slavery up to individual states, but Lincoln argued that the president's war powers trumped states' rights. Simon's focus on Lincoln and Taney makes for a dramatic, charged narrative—and the focus on presidential war powers makes this historical study extremely timely.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 10th Amendment states:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Secession is not prohibited anywhere in the constitution and was considered an obvious right of all States until after the War for Southern Independence.
> Because the Constitution does not prohibit secession, it is therefore a power delegated to the States.
> 
> Remember that the States are independent and sovereign, and they created the Union, not the other way around.
> The USA is simply an agent for the individual States. Without the threat of leaving, the States are completely powerless to the Federal Government.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it."
> 
> Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"
> 
> At Virginia's ratification convention, the delegates said, "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression."
> 
> In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what "the people" meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong."
> 
> In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.
> 
> On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Maryland Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel said, "Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty."
> 
> The northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.
> 
> Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South's right to secede.
> 
> New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861."
> 
> Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful could produce nothing but evil -- evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content."
> 
> The New York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go."
> 
> In Federalist Paper 45, Madison guaranteed: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
> 
> The South seceded because of Washington's encroachment on that vision. Today, it's worse. Turn Madison's vision on its head, and you have today's America.
Click to expand...


In other words:  The Supreme Court in no way ever interpreted secession as being legal.


----------



## James Everett

Discombobulated said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what the british said, too...We didn't ask their permission either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not even remotely comparable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> The colonies didn't secede from britain? the british didn't attack us?  We're still subjects of the queen?
> Are you sure?
> 
> _when a group of people democratically decide to withdraw from an oppressive/corrupt government and form their own nation, they don't ask "permission"...._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't achieve independence through any legal means, they fought a revolution.   And that's what states will have to do if they really want to be sovereign nations.   Oh wait.....that's right, they already tried that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They sent a declaratioon of independence to king george.
> There didn't HAVE to be a revolution...but the king thought it was ok to kill people who want to peacefully and democratically withdraw and form their own country.
> 
> lincoln thought that way, too.
> 
> It'll be different next time. After the collapse and partitioning we'll correct the problems that caused the collapse and move on from there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good luck with your whole collapse theory.  People who talk like you are just fucking traitors as far as I'm concerned......talking traitors.   Talking traitors rarely do any actual fighting,  so I think we have very little to be concerned about there.
Click to expand...

Such is your opinion, as was the. Same held by many loyal subjects of King George. I am of the opinion that you are a traitor, as the founders fought for the very Liberty that your government has denied, and you support its tyranny. We will continue our work, you sit back and do whatever it is that you do.


Discombobulated said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, so if I live in the Ukraine that would be YOUR country to? You are funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you live in the Ukraine you've got enough problems already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sir, The Southern Confederate States did secede via their lawful authority, for the past 150 years they have been under the illegal occupation of the U.S.  suffered colonization against international law and continue such violation. The states that were occupied by Russia forming the former Soviet Union, regained their freedom when it collapsed, we will see the same  soon enough, this is why we continue moving forward with the registration and restoration process. You can learn of our project and progress at CSAgov. Org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess it's just unfortunate for Confederates that the Supreme Court of the United States of America didn't support their view.   Because that's who determines what's constitutional or not, the Constitution was never legitimately subject to the interpretations of a bunch of politicians who didn't want to give up their slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, son..that's not exactly true. Chief Justice Roger Taney favored allowing the south to secede...but it doesn't matter...the south had the legal right to secede and didn't need the supreme court to confirm or deny....Lincoln had to have his war, though and invaded the south
> *
> 
> Recommended Reading:Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Secession, and the President's War Powers*, by James F. Simon (Simon & Schuster). *Publishers Weekly:* This surprisingly taut and gripping book by NYU law professor Simon (What Kind of Nation) examines the limits of presidential prerogative during the Civil War.
> 
> *Lincoln and Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney saw eye to eye on certain matters; both, for example, disliked slavery. But beginning in 1857, when Lincoln criticized Taney's decision in the Dred Scott case, the pair began to spar. They diverged further once Lincoln became president when Taney insisted that secession was constitutional and preferable to bloodshed, and blamed the Civil War on Lincoln. In 1861, Taney argued that Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was illegal. This holding was, Simon argues, "a clarion call for the president to respect the civil liberties of American citizens." Continued below...
> 
> In an 1862 group of cases, Taney joined a minority opinion that Lincoln lacked the authority to order the seizure of Southern ships. Had Taney had the chance, suggests Simon, he would have declared the Emancipation Proclamation unconstitutional; he and Lincoln agreed that the Constitution left slavery up to individual states, but Lincoln argued that the president's war powers trumped states' rights. Simon's focus on Lincoln and Taney makes for a dramatic, charged narrative—and the focus on presidential war powers makes this historical study extremely timely.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 10th Amendment states:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Secession is not prohibited anywhere in the constitution and was considered an obvious right of all States until after the War for Southern Independence.
> Because the Constitution does not prohibit secession, it is therefore a power delegated to the States.
> 
> Remember that the States are independent and sovereign, and they created the Union, not the other way around.
> The USA is simply an agent for the individual States. Without the threat of leaving, the States are completely powerless to the Federal Government.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it."
> 
> Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"
> 
> At Virginia's ratification convention, the delegates said, "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression."
> 
> In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what "the people" meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong."
> 
> In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.
> 
> On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Maryland Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel said, "Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty."
> 
> The northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.
> 
> Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South's right to secede.
> 
> New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861."
> 
> Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful could produce nothing but evil -- evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content."
> 
> The New York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go."
> 
> In Federalist Paper 45, Madison guaranteed: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
> 
> The South seceded because of Washington's encroachment on that vision. Today, it's worse. Turn Madison's vision on its head, and you have today's America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words:  The Supreme Court in no way ever interpreted secession as being legal.
Click to expand...

your SCOTUS Han never considered the case, and no Texas v White was not a case concerning secession, that was a case concerning bonds. Your SCOTUS opinion would be irrelevant anyway as the Southern States have already seceded, such would be a case before the world court, which we would not Entertain such jurisdiction. We have our own method in progress.


----------



## James Everett

Discombobulated said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, so if I live in the Ukraine that would be YOUR country to? You are funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you live in the Ukraine you've got enough problems already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sir, The Southern Confederate States did secede via their lawful authority, for the past 150 years they have been under the illegal occupation of the U.S.  suffered colonization against international law and continue such violation. The states that were occupied by Russia forming the former Soviet Union, regained their freedom when it collapsed, we will see the same  soon enough, this is why we continue moving forward with the registration and restoration process. You can learn of our project and progress at CSAgov. Org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess it's just unfortunate for Confederates that the Supreme Court of the United States of America didn't support their view.   Because that's who determines what's constitutional or not, the Constitution was never legitimately subject to the interpretations of a bunch of politicians who didn't want to give up their slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, son..that's not exactly true. Chief Justice Roger Taney favored allowing the south to secede...but it doesn't matter...the south had the legal right to secede and didn't need the supreme court to confirm or deny....Lincoln had to have his war, though and invaded the south
> *
> 
> Recommended Reading:Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Secession, and the President's War Powers*, by James F. Simon (Simon & Schuster). *Publishers Weekly:* This surprisingly taut and gripping book by NYU law professor Simon (What Kind of Nation) examines the limits of presidential prerogative during the Civil War.
> 
> *Lincoln and Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney saw eye to eye on certain matters; both, for example, disliked slavery. But beginning in 1857, when Lincoln criticized Taney's decision in the Dred Scott case, the pair began to spar. They diverged further once Lincoln became president when Taney insisted that secession was constitutional and preferable to bloodshed, and blamed the Civil War on Lincoln. In 1861, Taney argued that Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was illegal. This holding was, Simon argues, "a clarion call for the president to respect the civil liberties of American citizens." Continued below...
> 
> In an 1862 group of cases, Taney joined a minority opinion that Lincoln lacked the authority to order the seizure of Southern ships. Had Taney had the chance, suggests Simon, he would have declared the Emancipation Proclamation unconstitutional; he and Lincoln agreed that the Constitution left slavery up to individual states, but Lincoln argued that the president's war powers trumped states' rights. Simon's focus on Lincoln and Taney makes for a dramatic, charged narrative—and the focus on presidential war powers makes this historical study extremely timely.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 10th Amendment states:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Secession is not prohibited anywhere in the constitution and was considered an obvious right of all States until after the War for Southern Independence.
> Because the Constitution does not prohibit secession, it is therefore a power delegated to the States.
> 
> Remember that the States are independent and sovereign, and they created the Union, not the other way around.
> The USA is simply an agent for the individual States. Without the threat of leaving, the States are completely powerless to the Federal Government.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it."
> 
> Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"
> 
> At Virginia's ratification convention, the delegates said, "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression."
> 
> In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what "the people" meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong."
> 
> In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.
> 
> On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Maryland Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel said, "Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty."
> 
> The northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.
> 
> Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South's right to secede.
> 
> New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861."
> 
> Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful could produce nothing but evil -- evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content."
> 
> The New York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go."
> 
> In Federalist Paper 45, Madison guaranteed: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
> 
> The South seceded because of Washington's encroachment on that vision. Today, it's worse. Turn Madison's vision on its head, and you have today's America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words:  The Supreme Court in no way ever interpreted secession as being legal.
Click to expand...

The reason why your SCOTUS has never and never will intertwine such case is that there is no law established concerning secession in order for them to render an opinion. You have said it yourself.


----------



## Rotagilla

Discombobulated said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, so if I live in the Ukraine that would be YOUR country to? You are funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you live in the Ukraine you've got enough problems already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sir, The Southern Confederate States did secede via their lawful authority, for the past 150 years they have been under the illegal occupation of the U.S.  suffered colonization against international law and continue such violation. The states that were occupied by Russia forming the former Soviet Union, regained their freedom when it collapsed, we will see the same  soon enough, this is why we continue moving forward with the registration and restoration process. You can learn of our project and progress at CSAgov. Org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess it's just unfortunate for Confederates that the Supreme Court of the United States of America didn't support their view.   Because that's who determines what's constitutional or not, the Constitution was never legitimately subject to the interpretations of a bunch of politicians who didn't want to give up their slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, son..that's not exactly true. Chief Justice Roger Taney favored allowing the south to secede...but it doesn't matter...the south had the legal right to secede and didn't need the supreme court to confirm or deny....Lincoln had to have his war, though and invaded the south
> *
> 
> Recommended Reading:Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Secession, and the President's War Powers*, by James F. Simon (Simon & Schuster). *Publishers Weekly:* This surprisingly taut and gripping book by NYU law professor Simon (What Kind of Nation) examines the limits of presidential prerogative during the Civil War.
> 
> *Lincoln and Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney saw eye to eye on certain matters; both, for example, disliked slavery. But beginning in 1857, when Lincoln criticized Taney's decision in the Dred Scott case, the pair began to spar. They diverged further once Lincoln became president when Taney insisted that secession was constitutional and preferable to bloodshed, and blamed the Civil War on Lincoln. In 1861, Taney argued that Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was illegal. This holding was, Simon argues, "a clarion call for the president to respect the civil liberties of American citizens." Continued below...
> 
> In an 1862 group of cases, Taney joined a minority opinion that Lincoln lacked the authority to order the seizure of Southern ships. Had Taney had the chance, suggests Simon, he would have declared the Emancipation Proclamation unconstitutional; he and Lincoln agreed that the Constitution left slavery up to individual states, but Lincoln argued that the president's war powers trumped states' rights. Simon's focus on Lincoln and Taney makes for a dramatic, charged narrative—and the focus on presidential war powers makes this historical study extremely timely.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it."
> 
> Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"
> 
> At Virginia's ratification convention, the delegates said, "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression."
> 
> In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what "the people" meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong."
> 
> In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.
> 
> On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Maryland Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel said, "Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty."
> 
> The northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.
> 
> Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South's right to secede.
> 
> New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861."
> 
> Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful could produce nothing but evil -- evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content."
> 
> The New York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go."
> 
> In Federalist Paper 45, Madison guaranteed: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
> 
> The South seceded because of Washington's encroachment on that vision. Today, it's worse. Turn Madison's vision on its head, and you have today's America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words:  The Supreme Court in no way ever interpreted secession as being legal.
Click to expand...


or illegal..it isn't mentioned in the constitution, is it? 
The states formed the government, not the other way around.
..and when citizens decide to withdraw from this government again the supreme court won't have jurisdiction or power.

The 10th Amendment states:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Secession is not prohibited anywhere in the constitution and was considered an obvious right of all States until after the War for Southern Independence.
Because the Constitution does not prohibit secession, it is therefore a power delegated to the States.

Remember that the States are independent and sovereign, and they created the Union, not the other way around.
The USA is simply an agent for the individual States. Without the threat of leaving, the States are completely powerless to the Federal Government.

Why is it such a detestable idea to you that people should be free to democratically withdraw and form their own government that suits them better?

Why are you against democracy and respecting the choice of the people even if you disagree with them?
You're obviously not a southerner, so what's it to you? We're all backward, inbred rednecks anyway, right?


----------



## Discombobulated

Rotagilla said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you live in the Ukraine you've got enough problems already.
> 
> 
> 
> Sir, The Southern Confederate States did secede via their lawful authority, for the past 150 years they have been under the illegal occupation of the U.S.  suffered colonization against international law and continue such violation. The states that were occupied by Russia forming the former Soviet Union, regained their freedom when it collapsed, we will see the same  soon enough, this is why we continue moving forward with the registration and restoration process. You can learn of our project and progress at CSAgov. Org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess it's just unfortunate for Confederates that the Supreme Court of the United States of America didn't support their view.   Because that's who determines what's constitutional or not, the Constitution was never legitimately subject to the interpretations of a bunch of politicians who didn't want to give up their slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, son..that's not exactly true. Chief Justice Roger Taney favored allowing the south to secede...but it doesn't matter...the south had the legal right to secede and didn't need the supreme court to confirm or deny....Lincoln had to have his war, though and invaded the south
> *
> 
> Recommended Reading:Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Secession, and the President's War Powers*, by James F. Simon (Simon & Schuster). *Publishers Weekly:* This surprisingly taut and gripping book by NYU law professor Simon (What Kind of Nation) examines the limits of presidential prerogative during the Civil War.
> 
> *Lincoln and Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney saw eye to eye on certain matters; both, for example, disliked slavery. But beginning in 1857, when Lincoln criticized Taney's decision in the Dred Scott case, the pair began to spar. They diverged further once Lincoln became president when Taney insisted that secession was constitutional and preferable to bloodshed, and blamed the Civil War on Lincoln. In 1861, Taney argued that Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was illegal. This holding was, Simon argues, "a clarion call for the president to respect the civil liberties of American citizens." Continued below...
> 
> In an 1862 group of cases, Taney joined a minority opinion that Lincoln lacked the authority to order the seizure of Southern ships. Had Taney had the chance, suggests Simon, he would have declared the Emancipation Proclamation unconstitutional; he and Lincoln agreed that the Constitution left slavery up to individual states, but Lincoln argued that the president's war powers trumped states' rights. Simon's focus on Lincoln and Taney makes for a dramatic, charged narrative—and the focus on presidential war powers makes this historical study extremely timely.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it."
> 
> Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"
> 
> At Virginia's ratification convention, the delegates said, "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression."
> 
> In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what "the people" meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong."
> 
> In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.
> 
> On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Maryland Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel said, "Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty."
> 
> The northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.
> 
> Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South's right to secede.
> 
> New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861."
> 
> Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful could produce nothing but evil -- evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content."
> 
> The New York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go."
> 
> In Federalist Paper 45, Madison guaranteed: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
> 
> The South seceded because of Washington's encroachment on that vision. Today, it's worse. Turn Madison's vision on its head, and you have today's America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words:  The Supreme Court in no way ever interpreted secession as being legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> or illegal..it isn't mentioned in the constitution, is it?
> The states formed the government, not the other way around.
> ..and when citizens decide to withdraw from this government again the supreme court won't have jurisdiction or power.
> 
> The 10th Amendment states:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Secession is not prohibited anywhere in the constitution and was considered an obvious right of all States until after the War for Southern Independence.
> Because the Constitution does not prohibit secession, it is therefore a power delegated to the States.
> 
> Remember that the States are independent and sovereign, and they created the Union, not the other way around.
> The USA is simply an agent for the individual States. Without the threat of leaving, the States are completely powerless to the Federal Government.
> 
> Why is it such a detestable idea to you that people should be free to democratically withdraw and form their own government that suits them better?
> 
> Why are you against democracy and respecting the choice of the people even if you disagree with them?
> You're obviously not a southerner, so what's it to you? We're all backward, inbred rednecks anyway, right?
Click to expand...


If you can't get all parties concerned to agree to a formalized legal process then you have exactly nothing.


----------



## Discombobulated

James Everett said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you live in the Ukraine you've got enough problems already.
> 
> 
> 
> Sir, The Southern Confederate States did secede via their lawful authority, for the past 150 years they have been under the illegal occupation of the U.S.  suffered colonization against international law and continue such violation. The states that were occupied by Russia forming the former Soviet Union, regained their freedom when it collapsed, we will see the same  soon enough, this is why we continue moving forward with the registration and restoration process. You can learn of our project and progress at CSAgov. Org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess it's just unfortunate for Confederates that the Supreme Court of the United States of America didn't support their view.   Because that's who determines what's constitutional or not, the Constitution was never legitimately subject to the interpretations of a bunch of politicians who didn't want to give up their slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, son..that's not exactly true. Chief Justice Roger Taney favored allowing the south to secede...but it doesn't matter...the south had the legal right to secede and didn't need the supreme court to confirm or deny....Lincoln had to have his war, though and invaded the south
> *
> 
> Recommended Reading:Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Secession, and the President's War Powers*, by James F. Simon (Simon & Schuster). *Publishers Weekly:* This surprisingly taut and gripping book by NYU law professor Simon (What Kind of Nation) examines the limits of presidential prerogative during the Civil War.
> 
> *Lincoln and Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney saw eye to eye on certain matters; both, for example, disliked slavery. But beginning in 1857, when Lincoln criticized Taney's decision in the Dred Scott case, the pair began to spar. They diverged further once Lincoln became president when Taney insisted that secession was constitutional and preferable to bloodshed, and blamed the Civil War on Lincoln. In 1861, Taney argued that Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was illegal. This holding was, Simon argues, "a clarion call for the president to respect the civil liberties of American citizens." Continued below...
> 
> In an 1862 group of cases, Taney joined a minority opinion that Lincoln lacked the authority to order the seizure of Southern ships. Had Taney had the chance, suggests Simon, he would have declared the Emancipation Proclamation unconstitutional; he and Lincoln agreed that the Constitution left slavery up to individual states, but Lincoln argued that the president's war powers trumped states' rights. Simon's focus on Lincoln and Taney makes for a dramatic, charged narrative—and the focus on presidential war powers makes this historical study extremely timely.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 10th Amendment states:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Secession is not prohibited anywhere in the constitution and was considered an obvious right of all States until after the War for Southern Independence.
> Because the Constitution does not prohibit secession, it is therefore a power delegated to the States.
> 
> Remember that the States are independent and sovereign, and they created the Union, not the other way around.
> The USA is simply an agent for the individual States. Without the threat of leaving, the States are completely powerless to the Federal Government.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it."
> 
> Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"
> 
> At Virginia's ratification convention, the delegates said, "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression."
> 
> In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what "the people" meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong."
> 
> In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.
> 
> On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Maryland Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel said, "Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty."
> 
> The northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.
> 
> Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South's right to secede.
> 
> New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861."
> 
> Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful could produce nothing but evil -- evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content."
> 
> The New York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go."
> 
> In Federalist Paper 45, Madison guaranteed: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
> 
> The South seceded because of Washington's encroachment on that vision. Today, it's worse. Turn Madison's vision on its head, and you have today's America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words:  The Supreme Court in no way ever interpreted secession as being legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The reason why your SCOTUS has never and never will intertwine such case is that there is no law established concerning secession in order for them to render an opinion. You have said it yourself.
Click to expand...


In other words:  No legal precedent to substantiate your view.


----------



## Rogue 9

Rotagilla said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> The south fired on the fort to repel the invasion.
> If you'd bother to read history, rather than regurgitate public school nonsense you'd know...I hope others reading this WILL go look for themselves..you continue to rely on emotion and anti southern bias...
> 
> Do a search.. "why did lincoln send ships to charleston in 1861"
> 
> 
> 
> I do read history, and I ask again, what invasion?  Major Anderson's troops were sitting in a federal fort and the ships (that never arrived, I might add) were bound for the same.  No one invaded Charleston.
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what the newspapers and the letters and writings of the people actually involved said at the time. This is all researchable; Attempt to deny them at your own risk, son.
> 
> 
> *"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?"* ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, and?  It's the duty of the President to enforce the laws of the Union.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... Charles Dickens in a London periodical in December 1861
> 
> *"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....".* ..... _London Times_ of 7 Nov 1861
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Britain's government was eager for the United States to falter so that they could resume colonization of the Americas.  That you cite British editorials shows a lot about your opinion of empire.
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... _North American Review_ (Boston October 1862)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If slavery was what brought unanimity to the South so that they could have a rebellion, then slavery was the cause of the rebellion.  Not to mention that the Confederate leaders all came right out and said that slavery was the cause of the rebellion (see the OP for numerous citations) and I think they know why they were doing what they did better than some dude in Boston.
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> "They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....._ New Orleans Daily Crescent_ 21 January 1861
> 
> *"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow."* .... _Chicago Daily Times_ December 1860
> 
> *"At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States."* ..... _NY Times_ 22 March 1861
> 
> *"the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...."* .... _Boston Transcript_ 18 March 1861
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?  The people doing the seceding know their motives better than some dudes in the North.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> "You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Gustavus Fox, May 1, 1861
> 
> *"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." *~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one made the traitors open fire.  Lincoln did not stand there at the cannons and lay match to powder hole.
> _*
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> "We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> ~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Well, do the archives in Washington tell that tale?  They didn't attack the Charleston batteries because it would have been suicidal; the batteries surrounding Charleston Harbor were designed to repel British battle fleets, which the flotilla of supply ships sent to Sumter were not.  They'd have been sunk with all hands had they tried to enter the harbor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO...Nice try but no one is fooled.
> 
> I give the actual quotes, date and publication by people actually involved in the situation...and your best response is "So?"..or outright denial of proven, established facts...
> 
> Those people's words aren't open to your revisionist reinterpretation. You have no standing to deny any of them or parse words or attempt semantic distortions. You refuse to address them honestly and instead try to use them as props and excuses to demean or diminish the truth.
> I doubt any honest people who have read this were fooled or impressed by your misrepresentations and attempts to deceive.
> 
> Those words and articles are HISTORICAL ACCOUNTS of events...You, on the other hand, offer NOTHING other than "nuh uh"..or "they deserved it"..
> 
> 
> I made my points and supported them.
> It's clear that your only purpose here is to display your anti southern bias and prejudices....so this discussion is over due to gross, overt dishonesty on your part.
Click to expand...

You posted excerpts of_ *newspaper editorials*_, Chuckles, editorials written by people far away from the action.  That in no way refutes the actual secession documents.

First, there was no invasion of Charleston.  Major Anderson was garrisoning a federal fort under the undisputed ownership of the United States.  Proof: 


			
				South Carolinian law: The ceding of Fort Sumter to the federal government said:
			
		

> Committee on Federal Relations
> In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836
> 
> "The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:
> 
> "*Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory*, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.
> 
> "Also resolved: *That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.*
> 
> "Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.
> 
> "Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:
> 
> "T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
> "In Senate, December 21st, 1836
> 
> "Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:
> 
> Jacob Warly, C. S.


So you can get right out with that.

Second, Colonel Baldwin's account of Lincoln asking what would become of his tariff.  That is hearsay.  There is no corroborating evidence, no account of Lincoln ever saying anything of the kind to anyone else, and not even any contemporary reference.  The account was published in the Southern Historical Society Papers in 1876, at a time when that Society was busily attempting to whitewash the secessions after comprehensively losing public opinion on the issue of slavery.  I can readily prove that as well if you wish. 

Third, I stand by what I said about the reliability of British editorials.  The British Empire greatly wanted to continue colonizing the Western Hemisphere, which the United States prevented them from doing; it was in their direct imperial interest for the Slave Power to win.  Note that their tune changed after the Emancipation Proclamation; once the Union stood to eradicate slavery it became politically impossible for Britain to support the Confederacy.

Fourth, you posted short, unsourced excerpts from a bunch of Northern newspaper editorials claiming that the secessions were about this or that thing apart from slavery.  Unfortunately for your case, that is a *much* lower order of evidence than the testimony of the people who did the deed.  I already cited that extensively in the OP, but since you refuse to go back and read it, here we go:  


			
				Mississippi Secession Convention said:
			
		

> *A Declaration of the Immediate Causes* which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
> 
> In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should *declare the prominent reasons* which have induced our course.
> 
> Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.


There. They said it, black and white, no subtlety involved.  The choice was between *abolition or a dissolution of the Union.*  Not taxes or a dissolution of the Union, not tariffs or a dissolution of the Union, but *abolition of slavery.*  I do not see what part of that is hard to grasp.  

Fifth, finally and perhaps most pathetically, you attempted to blame Lincoln for the shelling of Fort Sumter.  To quote the man himself, "That is cool.  A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and says 'Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you shall be a murderer!'"  This is basic ethics, Skippy; you are responsible for what you do, not other people.


----------



## Rotagilla

Rogue 9 said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> The south fired on the fort to repel the invasion.
> If you'd bother to read history, rather than regurgitate public school nonsense you'd know...I hope others reading this WILL go look for themselves..you continue to rely on emotion and anti southern bias...
> 
> Do a search.. "why did lincoln send ships to charleston in 1861"
> 
> 
> 
> I do read history, and I ask again, what invasion?  Major Anderson's troops were sitting in a federal fort and the ships (that never arrived, I might add) were bound for the same.  No one invaded Charleston.
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what the newspapers and the letters and writings of the people actually involved said at the time. This is all researchable; Attempt to deny them at your own risk, son.
> 
> 
> *"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?"* ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, and?  It's the duty of the President to enforce the laws of the Union.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... Charles Dickens in a London periodical in December 1861
> 
> *"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....".* ..... _London Times_ of 7 Nov 1861
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Britain's government was eager for the United States to falter so that they could resume colonization of the Americas.  That you cite British editorials shows a lot about your opinion of empire.
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... _North American Review_ (Boston October 1862)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If slavery was what brought unanimity to the South so that they could have a rebellion, then slavery was the cause of the rebellion.  Not to mention that the Confederate leaders all came right out and said that slavery was the cause of the rebellion (see the OP for numerous citations) and I think they know why they were doing what they did better than some dude in Boston.
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> "They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....._ New Orleans Daily Crescent_ 21 January 1861
> 
> *"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow."* .... _Chicago Daily Times_ December 1860
> 
> *"At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States."* ..... _NY Times_ 22 March 1861
> 
> *"the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...."* .... _Boston Transcript_ 18 March 1861
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?  The people doing the seceding know their motives better than some dudes in the North.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> "You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Gustavus Fox, May 1, 1861
> 
> *"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." *~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one made the traitors open fire.  Lincoln did not stand there at the cannons and lay match to powder hole.
> _*
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> "We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> ~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Well, do the archives in Washington tell that tale?  They didn't attack the Charleston batteries because it would have been suicidal; the batteries surrounding Charleston Harbor were designed to repel British battle fleets, which the flotilla of supply ships sent to Sumter were not.  They'd have been sunk with all hands had they tried to enter the harbor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO...Nice try but no one is fooled.
> 
> I give the actual quotes, date and publication by people actually involved in the situation...and your best response is "So?"..or outright denial of proven, established facts...
> 
> Those people's words aren't open to your revisionist reinterpretation. You have no standing to deny any of them or parse words or attempt semantic distortions. You refuse to address them honestly and instead try to use them as props and excuses to demean or diminish the truth.
> I doubt any honest people who have read this were fooled or impressed by your misrepresentations and attempts to deceive.
> 
> Those words and articles are HISTORICAL ACCOUNTS of events...You, on the other hand, offer NOTHING other than "nuh uh"..or "they deserved it"..
> 
> 
> I made my points and supported them.
> It's clear that your only purpose here is to display your anti southern bias and prejudices....so this discussion is over due to gross, overt dishonesty on your part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You posted excerpts of_ *newspaper editorials*_, Chuckles, editorials written by people far away from the action.  That in no way refutes the actual secession documents.
> 
> First, there was no invasion of Charleston.  Major Anderson was garrisoning a federal fort under the undisputed ownership of the United States.  Proof:
> 
> 
> 
> South Carolinian law: The ceding of Fort Sumter to the federal government said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Committee on Federal Relations
> In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836
> 
> "The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:
> 
> "*Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory*, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.
> 
> "Also resolved: *That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.*
> 
> "Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.
> 
> "Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:
> 
> "T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
> "In Senate, December 21st, 1836
> 
> "Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:
> 
> Jacob Warly, C. S.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can get right out with that.
> 
> Second, Colonel Baldwin's account of Lincoln asking what would become of his tariff.  That is hearsay.  There is no corroborating evidence, no account of Lincoln ever saying anything of the kind to anyone else, and not even any contemporary reference.  The account was published in the Southern Historical Society Papers in 1876, at a time when that Society was busily attempting to whitewash the secessions after comprehensively losing public opinion on the issue of slavery.  I can readily prove that as well if you wish.
> 
> Third, I stand by what I said about the reliability of British editorials.  The British Empire greatly wanted to continue colonizing the Western Hemisphere, which the United States prevented them from doing; it was in their direct imperial interest for the Slave Power to win.  Note that their tune changed after the Emancipation Proclamation; once the Union stood to eradicate slavery it became politically impossible for Britain to support the Confederacy.
> 
> Fourth, you posted short, unsourced excerpts from a bunch of Northern newspaper editorials claiming that the secessions were about this or that thing apart from slavery.  Unfortunately for your case, that is a *much* lower order of evidence than the testimony of the people who did the deed.  I already cited that extensively in the OP, but since you refuse to go back and read it, here we go:
> 
> 
> 
> Mississippi Secession Convention said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *A Declaration of the Immediate Causes* which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
> 
> In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should *declare the prominent reasons* which have induced our course.
> 
> Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There. They said it, black and white, no subtlety involved.  The choice was between *abolition or a dissolution of the Union.*  Not taxes or a dissolution of the Union, not tariffs or a dissolution of the Union, but *abolition of slavery.*  I do not see what part of that is hard to grasp.
> 
> Fifth, finally and perhaps most pathetically, you attempted to blame Lincoln for the shelling of Fort Sumter.  To quote the man himself, "That is cool.  A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and says 'Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you shall be a murderer!'"  This is basic ethics, Skippy; you are responsible for what you do, not other people.
Click to expand...


LMAO..good one..every single point I made...every single cited document are all incorrect and not valid...and you...LMAO..who cite not one single source....while making wild, unsupported proclamations, equivocations and reinterpretations believe you hold a special understanding of the situation...an even better understanding than the actual people involved at the time, in fact. LMFAO..not one single piece of supporting evidence...Comical.

Man..you're funny!


----------



## Rotagilla

_Rogue 9 
How about these quotes, ace? will you concede that they are accurate or do you think you can "correct" me about them, too?   


When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —*That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.*_



*Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,— most sacred right—a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory as they inhabit.
More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones.

A. Lincoln*
in Congress 1848




*Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that by the accession of a Republican Administration, their property, and their peace, and personal security, are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed, and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And more than this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves, and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

"Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."*


A. Lincoln
March 4, 1861


----------



## whitehall

JakeStarkey said:


> whitehall, are you drinking?


 Coffee. Is it illegal now?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Rogue 9 and paperview have it right.

Their opponents are bunch of mental fuck ups.  Tis the way it is.


----------



## paperview

The pasta dish rogatelli continues to roast itself - after only 120 times of being told there is a difference  between secession and revolution, does the unlearned macaroni need to be tutored  100 more times to get it through its skull?


----------



## Rogue 9

Rotagilla said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You posted excerpts of_ *newspaper editorials*_, Chuckles, editorials written by people far away from the action.  That in no way refutes the actual secession documents.
> 
> First, there was no invasion of Charleston.  Major Anderson was garrisoning a federal fort under the undisputed ownership of the United States.  Proof:
> 
> 
> 
> South Carolinian law: The ceding of Fort Sumter to the federal government said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Committee on Federal Relations
> In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836
> 
> "The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:
> 
> "*Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory*, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.
> 
> "Also resolved: *That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.*
> 
> "Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.
> 
> "Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:
> 
> "T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
> "In Senate, December 21st, 1836
> 
> "Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:
> 
> Jacob Warly, C. S.
> 
> 
> 
> So you can get right out with that.
> 
> Second, Colonel Baldwin's account of Lincoln asking what would become of his tariff.  That is hearsay.  There is no corroborating evidence, no account of Lincoln ever saying anything of the kind to anyone else, and not even any contemporary reference.  The account was published in the Southern Historical Society Papers in 1876, at a time when that Society was busily attempting to whitewash the secessions after comprehensively losing public opinion on the issue of slavery.  I can readily prove that as well if you wish.
> 
> Third, I stand by what I said about the reliability of British editorials.  The British Empire greatly wanted to continue colonizing the Western Hemisphere, which the United States prevented them from doing; it was in their direct imperial interest for the Slave Power to win.  Note that their tune changed after the Emancipation Proclamation; once the Union stood to eradicate slavery it became politically impossible for Britain to support the Confederacy.
> 
> Fourth, you posted short, unsourced excerpts from a bunch of Northern newspaper editorials claiming that the secessions were about this or that thing apart from slavery.  Unfortunately for your case, that is a *much* lower order of evidence than the testimony of the people who did the deed.  I already cited that extensively in the OP, but since you refuse to go back and read it, here we go:
> 
> 
> 
> Mississippi Secession Convention said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *A Declaration of the Immediate Causes* which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
> 
> In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should *declare the prominent reasons* which have induced our course.
> 
> Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There. They said it, black and white, no subtlety involved.  The choice was between *abolition or a dissolution of the Union.*  Not taxes or a dissolution of the Union, not tariffs or a dissolution of the Union, but *abolition of slavery.*  I do not see what part of that is hard to grasp.
> 
> Fifth, finally and perhaps most pathetically, you attempted to blame Lincoln for the shelling of Fort Sumter.  To quote the man himself, "That is cool.  A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and says 'Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you shall be a murderer!'"  This is basic ethics, Skippy; you are responsible for what you do, not other people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO..good one..every single point I made...every single cited document are all incorrect and not valid...and you...LMAO..who cite not one single source....while making wild, unsupported proclamations, equivocations and reinterpretations believe you hold a special understanding of the situation...an even better understanding than the actual people involved at the time, in fact. LMFAO..not one single piece of supporting evidence...Comical.
> 
> Man..you're funny!
Click to expand...

Are you blind or just illiterate?  I cited South Carolina's own law regarding the ownership of Fort Sumter and the secession declaration of Mississippi, and the rest is common knowledge or easily discernible from reading your own sources.  But fine, I'll hold your hand. 

Colonel Baldwin's account of his conversation with President Lincoln was first published in this edition of the _Southern Historical Society Papers_ in 1876.  You would think, had Lincoln said something of the kind, that Colonel Baldwin would have gone public with it immediately.  The Southern Historical Society was actively engaged in sanitizing the historical narrative to make their cause look good to future generations that would find slavery abhorrent.  (They evidently had some amount of success.)  Jubal Early, former Confederate general and at that time president of the Historical Society, gave a speech to that very same Society a few years before urging them to do that very thing.  





			
				Jubal Early said:
			
		

> There is one thing which is very certain : we cannot escape the ordeal of history. Before its bar we must appear, either as criminals — rebels and traitors seeking to throw off the authority of a legitimate government to which we were bound by the ties of allegiance — or as patriots defending our rights and vindicating the true principles of the government founded by our fathers. In the former character our enemies are seeking to present us, not only by their historical records, but by their literature and by the whole scope and tendency of their legislation and governmental policy. Shall we permit the indictment to go forth to the world and to posterity without a vindication of our motives and our conduct? Are we willing that our enemies shall be the historians of our cause and our struggle? No! a thousand times no! The men who by their deeds caused so many of the battle-fields of the South to blaze with a glory unsurpassed in the annals of the world, cannot be so recreant to the principles for which they fought, the traditions of the past, and the memory of their comrades "dead upon the field of honor," as to abandon the tribunal of history to those before whose immense numbers and physical power alone they were finally compelled to yield from mere exhaustion. Nor can we trust our vindication to the pens of the non-combatants on our own side, who, if not workers of mischief in their spheres, were of no material assistance to us in the terrible conflict. It is a high and solemn duty which those who were part and parcel of it owe to their dead comrades, to themselves, and to posterity, to vindicate the lionor and glory of our cause in the history of the struggle made in its defence.


"Go forth, and whitewash our history!"  Unfortunately for him, Alexander Stephens was not cooperating:  





			
				Alexander Stephens said:
			
		

> As for my Savanna speech, about which so much has been said and in regard to which I am represented as setting forth "slavery" as the "corner-stone" of the Confederacy, it is proper for me to state that that speech was extemporaneous, the reporter's notes, which were very imperfect, were hastily corrected by me; and were published without further revision and with several glaring errors. The substance of what I said on slavery was, that on the points under the old Constitution out of which so much discussion, agitation, and strife between the States had arisen, no future contention could arise, as these had been put to rest by clear language. I did not say, nor do I think the reporter represented me as saying, that there was the slightest change in the new Constitution from the old regarding the status of the African race amongst us. (*Slavery was without doubt the occasion of secession*; out of it rose the breach of compact, for instance, on the part of several Northern States in refusing to comply with Constitutional obligations as to rendition of fugitives from service, a course betraying total disregard for all constitutional barriers and guarantees.)
> I admitted that the fathers, both of the North and the South, who framed the old Constitution, while recognizing existing slavery and guaranteeing its continuance under the Constitution so long as the States should severally see fit to tolerate it in their respective limits, were perhaps all opposed to the principle. Jefferson, Madison, Washington, all looked for its early extinction throughout the United States. But on the subject of slavery - so called - (which was with us, or should be, nothing but the proper subordination of the inferior African race to the superior white) great and radical changes had taken place in the realm of thought; many eminent latter-day statesmen, philosophers, and philanthropists held different views from the fathers.
> 
> The patriotism of the fathers was not questioned, nor their ability and wisdom, but it devolved on the public men and statesmen of each generation to grapple with and solve the problems of their own times.
> 
> The relation of the black to the white race, or the proper status of the coloured population amongst us, was a question now of vastly more importance than when the old Constitution was formed. The order of subordination was nature's great law; philosophy taught that order as the normal condition of the African amongst European races. Upon this recognized principle of a proper subordination, let it be called slavery or what not, our State institutions were formed and rested. The new Confederation was entered into with this distinct understanding. This principle of the subordination of the inferior to the superior was the "corner-stone" on which it was formed. I used this metaphor merely to illustrate the firm convictions of the framers of the new Constitution that this relation of the black to the white race, which existed in 1787, was not wrong in itself, either morally or politically; that it was in conformity to nature and best for both races. I alluded not to the principles of the new Government on this subject, but to public sentiment in regard to these principles. The status of the African race in the new Constitution was left just where it was in the old; I affirmed and meant to affirm nothing else in this Savannah speech.
> 
> My own opinion of slavery, as often expressed, was that if the institution was not the best, or could not be made the best, for both races, looking to the advancement and progress of both, physically and morally, it ought to be abolished. It was far from being what it might and ought to have been. Education was denied. This was wrong. I ever condemned the wrong. Marriage was not recognized. This was a wrong that I condemned. Many things connected with it did not meet my approval but excited my disgust, abhorrence, and detestation. The same I may say of things connected with the best institutions in the best communities in which my lot has been cast. Great improvements were, however, going on in the condition of blacks in the South. Their general physical condition not only as to necessaries but as to comforts was better in my own neighbourhood in 1860, than was that of the whites when I can first recollect, say 1820. Much greater would have been made, I verily believe, but for outside agitation. I have but small doubt that education would have been allowed long ago in Georgia, except for outside pressure which stopped internal reform.



As for Britain and the value of British opinion, the ruling class and elites of the United Kingdom fervently wished for Confederate victory and even considered recognition and open intervention in 1862.  Covert intervention was endemic; British blockade runners sustained the Confederate war effort with British arms and ammunition and British shipyards built warships for the Confederacy.  There is no debate on this fact. 


Rotagilla said:


> _Rogue 9
> How about these quotes, ace? will you concede that they are accurate or do you think you can "correct" me about them, too?
> 
> 
> When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —*That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.*_
> 
> 
> 
> *Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,— most sacred right—a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory as they inhabit.
> More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones.
> 
> A. Lincoln*
> in Congress 1848
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that by the accession of a Republican Administration, their property, and their peace, and personal security, are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed, and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And more than this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves, and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
> 
> "Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."*
> 
> 
> A. Lincoln
> March 4, 1861


You posted these before and you already have my answer. But since your memory is evidently impaired, I'll answer again.

First, you cut off the rest of the Declaration, which goes on to say:  





			
				Declaration of Independence said:
			
		

> Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a *long train* of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.


A Presidential election is quite transient, it's extremely difficult to argue that Lincoln had subjected the Slave Power to a long train of _anything_ before he'd even been inaugurated, and the Slave Power didn't show anything even resembling patient sufferance.  You will find no refuge for your cause in the Declaration. 

Second, "being inclined and having the power."  Clearly, they didn't have the power.  QED.  

Third, what do you think that even proves?  He said they had no reason to secede for fear that he'd abolish slavery outright if they stayed in the Union, which is true; he didn't even have the inclination or support to do that for over two years while the war was actively going on!  The "lawless invasion" the Republican platform (which he was quoting) condemned was John Brown's raid.  (I've always found it notable that John Brown was condemned and hanged, while Preston Brooks was sent new canes from across the South to replace the one he broke beating Senator Sumner and was unanimously reelected by his constituents.  Interesting, isn't it?)  What he did *not* say was that their property, peace, and personal security wouldn't be endangered by starting a war with the United States.


----------



## whitehall

Try thinking outside the box you made in the 5th grade. Lincoln is 85% legend. He should have kept the Union together before he forced the South into secession, not after he authorized a war that killed most of the teenage men on both sid. Lincoln is credited with being the consummate politician because a series of fawning drooling sycophantic authors in the last century cherry picked a few quips and called him a genius. Lincoln didn't keep the Union together, he failed to hold the Nation together. He is responsible for the incredible carnage of the Civil War.


----------



## JakeStarkey

*whitehall snow, you know nothing.*

*Lincoln was trying to keep the Union together.*


*All the South had to do was*

*(1)  Keep slavery in the old South*

*(2)  Respect federal property*

*(3)  Follow constitutional, electoral process*

*Instead, the South fired on Old Glory and pissed on the patriots’ graves.*

*The northern democrats, who had been demanding compromise until the firing on Ft. Sumter, joined the GOP and joined in murdering the Old south.*

*Only the confederates are guilty of the carnage; it came because of their unweaning pride.*


----------



## Rogue 9

whitehall said:


> Try thinking outside the box you made in the 5th grade. Lincoln is 85% legend. He should have kept the Union together before he forced the South into secession, not after he authorized a war that killed most of the teenage men on both sid. Lincoln is credited with being the consummate politician because a series of fawning drooling sycophantic authors in the last century cherry picked a few quips and called him a genius. Lincoln didn't keep the Union together, he failed to hold the Nation together. He is responsible for the incredible carnage of the Civil War.


The secessions started on December 20th, 1860 with South Carolina, months before Lincoln's inauguration.  He didn't force the South into anything.


----------



## James Everett

Discombobulated said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sir, The Southern Confederate States did secede via their lawful authority, for the past 150 years they have been under the illegal occupation of the U.S.  suffered colonization against international law and continue such violation. The states that were occupied by Russia forming the former Soviet Union, regained their freedom when it collapsed, we will see the same  soon enough, this is why we continue moving forward with the registration and restoration process. You can learn of our project and progress at CSAgov. Org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it's just unfortunate for Confederates that the Supreme Court of the United States of America didn't support their view.   Because that's who determines what's constitutional or not, the Constitution was never legitimately subject to the interpretations of a bunch of politicians who didn't want to give up their slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, son..that's not exactly true. Chief Justice Roger Taney favored allowing the south to secede...but it doesn't matter...the south had the legal right to secede and didn't need the supreme court to confirm or deny....Lincoln had to have his war, though and invaded the south
> *
> 
> Recommended Reading:Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Secession, and the President's War Powers*, by James F. Simon (Simon & Schuster). *Publishers Weekly:* This surprisingly taut and gripping book by NYU law professor Simon (What Kind of Nation) examines the limits of presidential prerogative during the Civil War.
> 
> *Lincoln and Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney saw eye to eye on certain matters; both, for example, disliked slavery. But beginning in 1857, when Lincoln criticized Taney's decision in the Dred Scott case, the pair began to spar. They diverged further once Lincoln became president when Taney insisted that secession was constitutional and preferable to bloodshed, and blamed the Civil War on Lincoln. In 1861, Taney argued that Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was illegal. This holding was, Simon argues, "a clarion call for the president to respect the civil liberties of American citizens." Continued below...
> 
> In an 1862 group of cases, Taney joined a minority opinion that Lincoln lacked the authority to order the seizure of Southern ships. Had Taney had the chance, suggests Simon, he would have declared the Emancipation Proclamation unconstitutional; he and Lincoln agreed that the Constitution left slavery up to individual states, but Lincoln argued that the president's war powers trumped states' rights. Simon's focus on Lincoln and Taney makes for a dramatic, charged narrative—and the focus on presidential war powers makes this historical study extremely timely.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it."
> 
> Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"
> 
> At Virginia's ratification convention, the delegates said, "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression."
> 
> In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what "the people" meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong."
> 
> In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.
> 
> On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Maryland Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel said, "Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty."
> 
> The northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.
> 
> Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South's right to secede.
> 
> New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861."
> 
> Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful could produce nothing but evil -- evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content."
> 
> The New York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go."
> 
> In Federalist Paper 45, Madison guaranteed: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
> 
> The South seceded because of Washington's encroachment on that vision. Today, it's worse. Turn Madison's vision on its head, and you have today's America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words:  The Supreme Court in no way ever interpreted secession as being legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> or illegal..it isn't mentioned in the constitution, is it?
> The states formed the government, not the other way around.
> ..and when citizens decide to withdraw from this government again the supreme court won't have jurisdiction or power.
> 
> The 10th Amendment states:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Secession is not prohibited anywhere in the constitution and was considered an obvious right of all States until after the War for Southern Independence.
> Because the Constitution does not prohibit secession, it is therefore a power delegated to the States.
> 
> Remember that the States are independent and sovereign, and they created the Union, not the other way around.
> The USA is simply an agent for the individual States. Without the threat of leaving, the States are completely powerless to the Federal Government.
> 
> Why is it such a detestable idea to you that people should be free to democratically withdraw and form their own government that suits them better?
> 
> Why are you against democracy and respecting the choice of the people even if you disagree with them?
> You're obviously not a southerner, so what's it to you? We're all backward, inbred rednecks anyway, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you can't get all parties concerned to agree to a formalized legal process then you have exactly nothing.
Click to expand...

Discombobulated, 
Are you saying that the U.S. is NOT a nation of laws? That the U.S. would never agree to follow the law, that there are different laws for black and white, rich and poor, government and citizen? OH SURELY ONE COULD NEVER STATE SUCH!!!  Of course you know I am being sarcastic. Sir, you know nothing of the process we have established to restore our CSA government, to return to the wholly federal system under the Articles of Confederation and to end the occupation. Take our case before YOUR SCOTUS? Take our case before the World Court? I think not!!!! To do such would establish that either have jurisdiction, yet neither does. We have our path established, and we will see it through. CSAgov.org


----------



## whitehall

JakeStarkey said:


> *whitehall snow, you know nothing.*
> 
> *Lincoln was trying to keep the Union together.*
> 
> 
> *All the South had to do was*
> 
> *(1)  Keep slavery in the old South*
> 
> *(2)  Respect federal property*
> 
> *(3)  Follow constitutional, electoral process*
> 
> *Instead, the South fired on Old Glory and pissed on the patriots’ graves.*
> 
> *The northern democrats, who had been demanding compromise until the firing on Ft. Sumter, joined the GOP and joined in murdering the Old south.*
> 
> *Only the confederates are guilty of the carnage; it came because of their unweaning pride.*




That was Lincoln's freaking only mission. He failed to encourage a bi-partisan compromise in the border states. Surely Lincoln understood that a year or two or three or ten with political maneuvering and maybe concessions would avoid a freaking bloody Civil War. You have to understand that Civil War was in a scale of one to ten about number fifteen in the logical political options available to the president. Lincoln failed to keep the Union together.


----------



## James Everett

Rotagilla said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> The south fired on the fort to repel the invasion.
> If you'd bother to read history, rather than regurgitate public school nonsense you'd know...I hope others reading this WILL go look for themselves..you continue to rely on emotion and anti southern bias...
> 
> Do a search.. "why did lincoln send ships to charleston in 1861"
> 
> 
> 
> I do read history, and I ask again, what invasion?  Major Anderson's troops were sitting in a federal fort and the ships (that never arrived, I might add) were bound for the same.  No one invaded Charleston.
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what the newspapers and the letters and writings of the people actually involved said at the time. This is all researchable; Attempt to deny them at your own risk, son.
> 
> 
> *"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?"* ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, and?  It's the duty of the President to enforce the laws of the Union.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... Charles Dickens in a London periodical in December 1861
> 
> *"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....".* ..... _London Times_ of 7 Nov 1861
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Britain's government was eager for the United States to falter so that they could resume colonization of the Americas.  That you cite British editorials shows a lot about your opinion of empire.
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... _North American Review_ (Boston October 1862)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If slavery was what brought unanimity to the South so that they could have a rebellion, then slavery was the cause of the rebellion.  Not to mention that the Confederate leaders all came right out and said that slavery was the cause of the rebellion (see the OP for numerous citations) and I think they know why they were doing what they did better than some dude in Boston.
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> "They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....._ New Orleans Daily Crescent_ 21 January 1861
> 
> *"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow."* .... _Chicago Daily Times_ December 1860
> 
> *"At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States."* ..... _NY Times_ 22 March 1861
> 
> *"the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...."* .... _Boston Transcript_ 18 March 1861
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?  The people doing the seceding know their motives better than some dudes in the North.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> "You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Gustavus Fox, May 1, 1861
> 
> *"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." *~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one made the traitors open fire.  Lincoln did not stand there at the cannons and lay match to powder hole.
> _*
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> "We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> ~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Well, do the archives in Washington tell that tale?  They didn't attack the Charleston batteries because it would have been suicidal; the batteries surrounding Charleston Harbor were designed to repel British battle fleets, which the flotilla of supply ships sent to Sumter were not.  They'd have been sunk with all hands had they tried to enter the harbor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO...Nice try but no one is fooled.
> 
> I give the actual quotes, date and publication by people actually involved in the situation...and your best response is "So?"..or outright denial of proven, established facts...
> 
> Those people's words aren't open to your revisionist reinterpretation. You have no standing to deny any of them or parse words or attempt semantic distortions. You refuse to address them honestly and instead try to use them as props and excuses to demean or diminish the truth.
> I doubt any honest people who have read this were fooled or impressed by your misrepresentations and attempts to deceive.
> 
> Those words and articles are HISTORICAL ACCOUNTS of events...You, on the other hand, offer NOTHING other than "nuh uh"..or "they deserved it"..
> 
> 
> I made my points and supported them.
> It's clear that your only purpose here is to display your anti southern bias and prejudices....so this discussion is over due to gross, overt dishonesty on your part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You posted excerpts of_ *newspaper editorials*_, Chuckles, editorials written by people far away from the action.  That in no way refutes the actual secession documents.
> 
> First, there was no invasion of Charleston.  Major Anderson was garrisoning a federal fort under the undisputed ownership of the United States.  Proof:
> 
> 
> 
> South Carolinian law: The ceding of Fort Sumter to the federal government said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Committee on Federal Relations
> In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836
> 
> "The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:
> 
> "*Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory*, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.
> 
> "Also resolved: *That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.*
> 
> "Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.
> 
> "Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:
> 
> "T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
> "In Senate, December 21st, 1836
> 
> "Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:
> 
> Jacob Warly, C. S.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can get right out with that.
> 
> Second, Colonel Baldwin's account of Lincoln asking what would become of his tariff.  That is hearsay.  There is no corroborating evidence, no account of Lincoln ever saying anything of the kind to anyone else, and not even any contemporary reference.  The account was published in the Southern Historical Society Papers in 1876, at a time when that Society was busily attempting to whitewash the secessions after comprehensively losing public opinion on the issue of slavery.  I can readily prove that as well if you wish.
> 
> Third, I stand by what I said about the reliability of British editorials.  The British Empire greatly wanted to continue colonizing the Western Hemisphere, which the United States prevented them from doing; it was in their direct imperial interest for the Slave Power to win.  Note that their tune changed after the Emancipation Proclamation; once the Union stood to eradicate slavery it became politically impossible for Britain to support the Confederacy.
> 
> Fourth, you posted short, unsourced excerpts from a bunch of Northern newspaper editorials claiming that the secessions were about this or that thing apart from slavery.  Unfortunately for your case, that is a *much* lower order of evidence than the testimony of the people who did the deed.  I already cited that extensively in the OP, but since you refuse to go back and read it, here we go:
> 
> 
> 
> Mississippi Secession Convention said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *A Declaration of the Immediate Causes* which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
> 
> In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should *declare the prominent reasons* which have induced our course.
> 
> Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There. They said it, black and white, no subtlety involved.  The choice was between *abolition or a dissolution of the Union.*  Not taxes or a dissolution of the Union, not tariffs or a dissolution of the Union, but *abolition of slavery.*  I do not see what part of that is hard to grasp.
> 
> Fifth, finally and perhaps most pathetically, you attempted to blame Lincoln for the shelling of Fort Sumter.  To quote the man himself, "That is cool.  A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and says 'Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you shall be a murderer!'"  This is basic ethics, Skippy; you are responsible for what you do, not other people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO..good one..every single point I made...every single cited document are all incorrect and not valid...and you...LMAO..who cite not one single source....while making wild, unsupported proclamations, equivocations and reinterpretations believe you hold a special understanding of the situation...an even better understanding than the actual people involved at the time, in fact. LMFAO..not one single piece of supporting evidence...Comical.
> 
> Man..you're funny!
Click to expand...

Rogue9 never offers source for his gratuitous assertions. He is simply a Pseudo intellectual with nothing beyond his simple indoctrination to add to the subject.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> Rogue 9 and paperview have it right.
> 
> Their opponents are bunch of mental fuck ups.  Tis the way it is.


Another genius addition from The Yankee cheerleader, JAKESTARKEY. Jake, your boys have been defeated with the truth and facts at every turn. They are lightweights in this debate. You simply deny the facts that have been presented, the two idiots that you cheer on have offered nothing, they cite nothing, AND WE STILL AWAIT THEIR POSTING OF THE LAW, Article within YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, or Amendment thereof that states that secession is unlawful or illegal. THEY HAVE LESS THAN 24 HOURS TO MEET THE DEADLINE. THEY CANNOT, THEREFORE THEY LOSE.


----------



## James Everett

paperview said:


> The pasta dish rogatelli continues to roast itself - after only 120 times of being told there is a difference  between secession and revolution, does the unlearned macaroni need to be tutored  100 more times to get it through its skull?


The Secession of the Southern States was a legal and lawful avenue taken. IF YOU HAVE PROOF OTHERWISE, POST IT OR GO AWAY. YOU CAME WITH NOTHING, AND YOU WILL LEAVE DEFEATED WITH NOTHING. 
*WE STILL AWAIT YOUR POSTING OF THE LAW, Article within YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, or Amendment thereof that states that secession is unlawful or illegal. THEY HAVE LESS THAN 24 HOURS TO MEET THE DEADLINE. YOU CANNOT, THEREFORE YOU LOSE.*


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> *whitehall snow, you know nothing.*
> 
> *Lincoln was trying to keep the Union together.*
> 
> 
> *All the South had to do was*
> 
> *(1)  Keep slavery in the old South*
> 
> *(2)  Respect federal property*
> 
> *(3)  Follow constitutional, electoral process*
> 
> *Instead, the South fired on Old Glory and pissed on the patriots’ graves.*
> 
> *The northern democrats, who had been demanding compromise until the firing on Ft. Sumter, joined the GOP and joined in murdering the Old south.*
> 
> *Only the confederates are guilty of the carnage; it came because of their unweaning pride.*


*JAKESTARKEY, THE UNION WAS IN NO DANGER OF FALLING APART, LINCOLN DESTROYED THE UNION, BY DESTROYING THE FEDERAL SYSTEM WITHIN. THE UNION WOULD HAVE EXISTED WITHOUT THE SOUTHERN STATES, AS IT ONLY TAKES TWO TO BE UNITED IN A UNION. ARE YOU ADMITTING THAT THE SOUTHERN STATES WERE SUBSIDISING THE NORTHERN STATES, AND THAT THEY COULD NOT HAVE EXISTED WITHOUT OUR REVENUE AND PARTICIPATION?*


----------



## Rogue 9

James Everett said:


> Rogue9 never offers source for his gratuitous assertions. He is simply a Pseudo intellectual with nothing beyond his simple indoctrination to add to the subject.


You are a goddamned liar, Mr. Everett. I have filled this thread with sources aplenty and to spare, *including in the very post he was quoting that you responded to*; I have to conclude at this point that you simply aren't reading what I post.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> *whitehall snow, you know nothing.*
> 
> *Lincoln was trying to keep the Union together.*
> 
> 
> *All the South had to do was*
> 
> *(1)  Keep slavery in the old South*
> 
> *(2)  Respect federal property*
> 
> *(3)  Follow constitutional, electoral process*
> 
> *Instead, the South fired on Old Glory and pissed on the patriots’ graves.*
> 
> *The northern democrats, who had been demanding compromise until the firing on Ft. Sumter, joined the GOP and joined in murdering the Old south.*
> 
> *Only the confederates are guilty of the carnage; it came because of their unweaning pride.*


JAKESTARKEY, 
To address ....
(1) of your comment....When the Southern States seceded, Slavery ended in the U.S. Did it not? Therefore Slavery was kept in the South. No one was forcing Slavery on the Northern States, or Western States, they each had their own choice in the matter.
(2) The South probably should not have fired on Sumter, they should have simply shut off all access to resupply any of them, hence starve them out. The U.S. did NOT own the waters around Sumpter, or the land around any of the forts, therefore to resupply them would have meant the U.S. would have to cross Southern States soil or waters. The legal question is open in my opinion as to whether or not the U.S. could hold legal claim on those forts, once a State exits the union, all agreements to which that State became a member State in it were nullified. 
(3) Please explain how the Southern States did NOT follow the constitutional election process. The States have constitutional  total control over ballot access, and to this very day restrict such to third party candidates which is exactly what Lincoln was. And NO IT WAS LINCOLN AND THE NORTHERN STATES WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE AS THEY WERE IN REBELLION TO THE LAWFUL AUTHORITY OF THE U.S. CONstitutions TENTH AMENDMENT.


----------



## James Everett

Rogue 9 said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue9 never offers source for his gratuitous assertions. He is simply a Pseudo intellectual with nothing beyond his simple indoctrination to add to the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> You are a goddamned liar, Mr. Everett. I have filled this thread with sources aplenty and to spare, *including in the very post he was quoting that you responded to*; I have to conclude at this point that you simply aren't reading what I post.
Click to expand...

The only two sources concerning the legality of secession were easily shot down, one being the Militia act of 1793 wherein I destroyed that poor point, then there was Article IV section three that you THOUGHT was a law forbidding secession, and yet again I destroyed that misunderstanding that you held. Beyond that I have seen NOTHING but gratuitous assertions on your part without sourcing evidence of fact concerning your posts to me. P.S. YOUR deadline is less than 24hrs away. Actually, I find it difficult to read what you post at this point as you have so discredited yourself via your lack of understanding your own U.S. CONstitution, it is akin to reading a third graders thoughts or understanding thereof.


----------



## Rotagilla

Rogue 9 said:


> Are you blind or just illiterate?  But fine, I'll hold your hand.


Very mature rebuttal.




Rogue 9 said:


> You posted these before and you already have my answer. But since your memory is evidently impaired, I'll answer again.



You can't refute them so you try to play word games...but yes..My memory must be impaired. Very mature rebuttal.




Rogue 9 said:


> First, you cut off the rest of the Declaration, which goes on to say:





			
				Declaration of Independence said:
			
		

> Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a *long train* of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.



Yes. I "cut off" that part..If the citizens of 11 states decide that they want to withdraw that obviously isn't a "light or transient cause"...You purposely try to mischaracterize/demean...as usual.



Rogue 9 said:


> A Presidential election is quite transient, it's extremely difficult to argue that Lincoln had subjected the Slave Power to a long train of _anything_ before he'd even been inaugurated, and the Slave Power didn't show anything even resembling patient sufferance.  You will find no refuge for your cause in the Declaration.



More distortion and anti southern revisionist nonsense.

The south didn't attempt to peacefully withdraw because of an election. You aren't fooling anyone with that (public) middle school assessment. Don't you wish it were that simple....



Rogue 9 said:


> Second, "being inclined and having the power."  Clearly, they didn't have the power.  QED.



Oh you think it's funny to laugh and gloat over a government that would invade, murder/rape/rob civilians (fellow americans, mind you), steal their property, burn their homes and businesses and wreck their infrastructure because they want to legally and peacefully withdraw from your _union_? 
Now you see WHY they wanted to get away from people that think like you.

Why exactly is it so important to you that people trying to exercise their legal rights to withdraw and form their own government should be violently subdued and brought under domination?

Was king george correct to invade the colonies and murder civilians because the colonists wanted to withdraw from england?

Apparently, using your logic, if your wife asks for a divorce, you believe it's ok to beat her for it.

We send troops around the world to help other nations form their own democratic governments...but you think it's ok to murder fellow citizens who wanted the same things...Hypocrisy much?

Regardless..this country is finished anyway...and the next time a group of states decide to withdraw (and it's coming...probably in the west. Most Southern states would likely join them, too)....there's nothing your gvmt will be able to do about it...so laugh it up funny boy...




Rogue 9 said:


> Third, what do you think that even proves?  He said they had no reason to secede for fear that he'd abolish slavery outright if they stayed in the Union, which is true;



Your public school indoctrination is leaking through. You try to condense the causes of war of northern aggression into one simple issue. That won't fly.

The south didn't secede over the election of lincoln or the abolition of slavery...More distortion. I doubt many readers are fooled, though.




Rogue 9 said:


> he didn't even have the inclination or support to do that for over two years while the war was actively going on!  The "lawless invasion" the Republican platform (which he was quoting) condemned was John Brown's raid.  (I've always found it notable that John Brown was condemned and hanged, while Preston Brooks was sent new canes from across the South to replace the one he broke beating Senator Sumner and was unanimously reelected by his constituents.  Interesting, isn't it?)  What he did *not* say was that their property, peace, and personal security wouldn't be endangered by starting a war with the United States.



..and down the rabbit hole you go again with john brown..preston brooks...sumner.....Anything to cause a distraction seems to be your tactic...I'm not chasing you as you dodge and try to evade...You've made your anti southern, anti democracy and anti freedom position clear.

You think you have all the snappy answers when you get to frame the topic and redefine the terms used.

Let's see you wiggle out of this...Yes..I posted it before...several times...and you continue to ignore it as you try to ignore the principles of the Declaration of Independence.

Let me see you play word games and redefine terms here, slick;

We can go sentence by sentence or word by word...whichever you like. 

*Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,— most sacred right—a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory as they inhabit.
More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones.

A. Lincoln*
in Congress 1848


----------



## Ravi

Rotagilla said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> _..._
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> I so tire of repeating myself.
> 
> Why Did The South Secede Page 5 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Why Did The South Secede Page 5 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> One of your gems from that thread:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> The industrial revolution was occurring and slaves were impractical and more trouble than they were worth. That's a fact..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol.
> 
> 
> Then the one where you went on to say how the _"south didn't want to Import anymore"_ slaves in 1860...
> That was a real knee slapper.
> 
> Or how that rip roarin' 1850 cotton harvester you plucked from wiki was makin' slavery "a fading, inefficient and destructive practice and everyone knew it at the time."
> 
> Anyone want to read a Rigatoni-flavored White supremacist make a fool of himself, that thread is quite the funz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was a dying practice. Southerners knew it. The leaders of the south knew it.
> Machines are more efficient and require less maintenance than humans..
> ...but you aren't here to have a mature discussion about facts, are you?..you prefer to preen and pose and mock as you display your anti southern bias.
> All good. It'll get sorted one day.
Click to expand...

This is oft repeated bullshit. There would always be more jobs to force slaves to do.

Not to mention that slavery is wrong and every day it lasted compounded that wrong.


----------



## Rotagilla

James Everett said:


> JAKESTARKEY,
> To address ....
> (1) of your comment....When the Southern States seceded, Slavery ended in the U.S. Did it not? Therefore Slavery was kept in the South. No one was forcing Slavery on the Northern States, or Western States, they each had their own choice in the matter.
> (2) The South probably should not have fired on Sumter, they should have simply shut off all access to resupply any of them, hence starve them out. The U.S. did NOT own the waters around Sumpter, or the land around any of the forts, therefore to resupply them would have meant the U.S. would have to cross Southern States soil or waters. The legal question is open in my opinion as to whether or not the U.S. could hold legal claim on those forts, once a State exits the union, all agreements to which that State became a member State in it were nullified.
> (3) Please explain how the Southern States did NOT follow the constitutional election process. The States have constitutional  total control over ballot access, and to this very day restrict such to third party candidates which is exactly what Lincoln was. And NO IT WAS LINCOLN AND THE NORTHERN STATES WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE AS THEY WERE IN REBELLION TO THE LAWFUL AUTHORITY OF THE U.S. CONstitutions TENTH AMENDMENT.



Mr. Everett,
It has been my understanding that the south offered to pay for all federal installation on our property and safely evacuate any troops that were there. 


Even revisionist wikipedia can't deny those facts;
Battle of Fort Sumter - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

_The South sent delegations to Washington, D.C., and offered to pay for the Federal properties and enter into a peace treaty with the United States. Lincoln rejected any negotiations with the Confederate agents because he did not consider the Confederacy a legitimate nation and making any treaty with it would be tantamount to recognition of it as a sovereign government. However, Secretary of State William H. Seward, who wished to give up Sumter for political reasons—as a gesture of good will—engaged in unauthorized and indirect negotiations that failed.[21]_

We already know that Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger Taney thought secession was legal and the union had no right to invade...

...but no..lincoln had to have his war...
Oh well...Next time.


----------



## Rotagilla

Ravi said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> _..._
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> I so tire of repeating myself.
> 
> Why Did The South Secede Page 5 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Why Did The South Secede Page 5 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> One of your gems from that thread:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> The industrial revolution was occurring and slaves were impractical and more trouble than they were worth. That's a fact..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol.
> 
> 
> Then the one where you went on to say how the _"south didn't want to Import anymore"_ slaves in 1860...
> That was a real knee slapper.
> 
> Or how that rip roarin' 1850 cotton harvester you plucked from wiki was makin' slavery "a fading, inefficient and destructive practice and everyone knew it at the time."
> 
> Anyone want to read a Rigatoni-flavored White supremacist make a fool of himself, that thread is quite the funz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was a dying practice. Southerners knew it. The leaders of the south knew it.
> Machines are more efficient and require less maintenance than humans..
> ...but you aren't here to have a mature discussion about facts, are you?..you prefer to preen and pose and mock as you display your anti southern bias.
> All good. It'll get sorted one day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is oft repeated bullshit. There would always be more jobs to force slaves to do.
> 
> Not to mention that slavery is wrong and every day it lasted compounded that wrong.
Click to expand...


Slavery was a dying practice. The industrial revolution was beginning and machines are more efficient and require less maintenance than farm animals. 

Let me try to understand;  

Your position is that if the south had not been invaded and beaten into submission by the federal government we'd (southerners) all be sitting on our verandas drinking mint juleps while the darkies plowed the fields and picked the cotton?


----------



## Ravi

Rotagilla said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> _..._
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> I so tire of repeating myself.
> 
> Why Did The South Secede Page 5 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Why Did The South Secede Page 5 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> One of your gems from that thread:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> The industrial revolution was occurring and slaves were impractical and more trouble than they were worth. That's a fact..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol.
> 
> 
> Then the one where you went on to say how the _"south didn't want to Import anymore"_ slaves in 1860...
> That was a real knee slapper.
> 
> Or how that rip roarin' 1850 cotton harvester you plucked from wiki was makin' slavery "a fading, inefficient and destructive practice and everyone knew it at the time."
> 
> Anyone want to read a Rigatoni-flavored White supremacist make a fool of himself, that thread is quite the funz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was a dying practice. Southerners knew it. The leaders of the south knew it.
> Machines are more efficient and require less maintenance than humans..
> ...but you aren't here to have a mature discussion about facts, are you?..you prefer to preen and pose and mock as you display your anti southern bias.
> All good. It'll get sorted one day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is oft repeated bullshit. There would always be more jobs to force slaves to do.
> 
> Not to mention that slavery is wrong and every day it lasted compounded that wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery was a dying practice. The industrial revolution was beginning and machines are more efficient and require less maintenance than farm animals.
> 
> Let me try to understand;
> 
> Your position is that if the south had not been invaded and beaten into submission by the federal government we'd (southerners) all be sitting on our verandas drinking mint juleps while the darkies plowed the fields and picked the cotton?
Click to expand...

Farm animals, how charming.

No, you'd be sitting on your veranda while your slaves were cleaning your toilets and any thing else you wanted them to do.


----------



## Rotagilla

Ravi said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> _..._
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> I so tire of repeating myself.
> 
> Why Did The South Secede Page 5 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Why Did The South Secede Page 5 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> One of your gems from that thread:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> The industrial revolution was occurring and slaves were impractical and more trouble than they were worth. That's a fact..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol.
> 
> 
> Then the one where you went on to say how the _"south didn't want to Import anymore"_ slaves in 1860...
> That was a real knee slapper.
> 
> Or how that rip roarin' 1850 cotton harvester you plucked from wiki was makin' slavery "a fading, inefficient and destructive practice and everyone knew it at the time."
> 
> Anyone want to read a Rigatoni-flavored White supremacist make a fool of himself, that thread is quite the funz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was a dying practice. Southerners knew it. The leaders of the south knew it.
> Machines are more efficient and require less maintenance than humans..
> ...but you aren't here to have a mature discussion about facts, are you?..you prefer to preen and pose and mock as you display your anti southern bias.
> All good. It'll get sorted one day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is oft repeated bullshit. There would always be more jobs to force slaves to do.
> 
> Not to mention that slavery is wrong and every day it lasted compounded that wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery was a dying practice. The industrial revolution was beginning and machines are more efficient and require less maintenance than farm animals.
> 
> Let me try to understand;
> 
> Your position is that if the south had not been invaded and beaten into submission by the federal government we'd (southerners) all be sitting on our verandas drinking mint juleps while the darkies plowed the fields and picked the cotton?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Farm animals, how charming.
Click to expand...


What? Are machines more efficient than animals or not? 
Take your time.



Ravi said:


> No, you'd be sitting on your veranda while your slaves were cleaning your toilets and any thing else you wanted them to do.



Oh..word games..Ok..I'll play


Prove it. Prove what you just claimed.


----------



## Ravi

Rotagilla said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> I so tire of repeating myself.
> 
> Why Did The South Secede Page 5 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Why Did The South Secede Page 5 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> One of your gems from that thread:lol.
> 
> 
> Then the one where you went on to say how the _"south didn't want to Import anymore"_ slaves in 1860...
> That was a real knee slapper.
> 
> Or how that rip roarin' 1850 cotton harvester you plucked from wiki was makin' slavery "a fading, inefficient and destructive practice and everyone knew it at the time."
> 
> Anyone want to read a Rigatoni-flavored White supremacist make a fool of himself, that thread is quite the funz.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was a dying practice. Southerners knew it. The leaders of the south knew it.
> Machines are more efficient and require less maintenance than humans..
> ...but you aren't here to have a mature discussion about facts, are you?..you prefer to preen and pose and mock as you display your anti southern bias.
> All good. It'll get sorted one day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is oft repeated bullshit. There would always be more jobs to force slaves to do.
> 
> Not to mention that slavery is wrong and every day it lasted compounded that wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery was a dying practice. The industrial revolution was beginning and machines are more efficient and require less maintenance than farm animals.
> 
> Let me try to understand;
> 
> Your position is that if the south had not been invaded and beaten into submission by the federal government we'd (southerners) all be sitting on our verandas drinking mint juleps while the darkies plowed the fields and picked the cotton?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Farm animals, how charming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? Are machines more efficient than animals or not?
> Take your time.
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you'd be sitting on your veranda while your slaves were cleaning your toilets and any thing else you wanted them to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh..word games..Ok..I'll play
> 
> 
> Prove it. Prove what you just claimed.
Click to expand...

I don't need to. You need to prove your retarded assertion that machines would have spelled the end of slavery.


----------



## Rotagilla

Ravi said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was a dying practice. Southerners knew it. The leaders of the south knew it.
> Machines are more efficient and require less maintenance than humans..
> ...but you aren't here to have a mature discussion about facts, are you?..you prefer to preen and pose and mock as you display your anti southern bias.
> All good. It'll get sorted one day.
> 
> 
> 
> This is oft repeated bullshit. There would always be more jobs to force slaves to do.
> 
> Not to mention that slavery is wrong and every day it lasted compounded that wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery was a dying practice. The industrial revolution was beginning and machines are more efficient and require less maintenance than farm animals.
> 
> Let me try to understand;
> 
> Your position is that if the south had not been invaded and beaten into submission by the federal government we'd (southerners) all be sitting on our verandas drinking mint juleps while the darkies plowed the fields and picked the cotton?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Farm animals, how charming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? Are machines more efficient than animals or not?
> Take your time.
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you'd be sitting on your veranda while your slaves were cleaning your toilets and any thing else you wanted them to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh..word games..Ok..I'll play
> 
> 
> Prove it. Prove what you just claimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't need to. You need to prove your retarded assertion that machines would have spelled the end of slavery.
Click to expand...


ravi...is it your position that if not for the war of northern aggression there would still be slavery in america?


----------



## Ravi

Rotagilla said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is oft repeated bullshit. There would always be more jobs to force slaves to do.
> 
> Not to mention that slavery is wrong and every day it lasted compounded that wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was a dying practice. The industrial revolution was beginning and machines are more efficient and require less maintenance than farm animals.
> 
> Let me try to understand;
> 
> Your position is that if the south had not been invaded and beaten into submission by the federal government we'd (southerners) all be sitting on our verandas drinking mint juleps while the darkies plowed the fields and picked the cotton?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Farm animals, how charming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? Are machines more efficient than animals or not?
> Take your time.
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you'd be sitting on your veranda while your slaves were cleaning your toilets and any thing else you wanted them to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh..word games..Ok..I'll play
> 
> 
> Prove it. Prove what you just claimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't need to. You need to prove your retarded assertion that machines would have spelled the end of slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ravi...is it your position that if not for the war of northern aggression there would still be slavery in america?
Click to expand...

No, since it was always unconstitutional. But it would have lasted another 50 to 100 years.

You lost, get over it.


----------



## Rotagilla

Ravi said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was a dying practice. The industrial revolution was beginning and machines are more efficient and require less maintenance than farm animals.
> 
> Let me try to understand;
> 
> Your position is that if the south had not been invaded and beaten into submission by the federal government we'd (southerners) all be sitting on our verandas drinking mint juleps while the darkies plowed the fields and picked the cotton?
> 
> 
> 
> Farm animals, how charming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? Are machines more efficient than animals or not?
> Take your time.
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you'd be sitting on your veranda while your slaves were cleaning your toilets and any thing else you wanted them to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh..word games..Ok..I'll play
> 
> 
> Prove it. Prove what you just claimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't need to. You need to prove your retarded assertion that machines would have spelled the end of slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ravi...is it your position that if not for the war of northern aggression there would still be slavery in america?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, since it was always unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

slavery was not "always" unconstitutional.



Ravi said:


> But it would have lasted another 50 to 100 years.



in your opinion.




Ravi said:


> You lost, get over it.


america lost.


----------



## Ravi

It was always unconstitutional.

America lost what? The "right" to enslave black people?


----------



## Rotagilla

Ravi said:


> It was always unconstitutional.



Post the article and section/paragraph, then.
Your opinion doesn't matter here.




Ravi said:


> America lost what? The "right" to enslave black people?



america lost when the government decided to invade, murder/rape/rob civilians (fellow americans, mind you), steal their property, burn their homes and businesses and wreck their infrastructure because they want to legally and peacefully withdraw from the _union_.

Why exactly is it so important to you that people trying to exercise their legal rights to withdraw and form their own government should be violently subdued and brought under domination?

Was king george correct to invade the colonies and murder civilians because the colonists wanted to withdraw from england?

Apparently, using your logic, if your wife asks for a divorce, you believe it's ok to beat her for it.

We send troops around the world to help other nations form their own democratic governments...but you think it's ok to murder fellow citizens who wanted the same things...Hypocrisy much?

Regardless..this country is finished anyway...and the next time a group of states decide to withdraw (and it's coming...probably in the west. Most Southern states would likely join them, too)....there's nothing your gvmt will be able to do about it...so laugh it up, sweetie...


----------



## James Everett

Ravi said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was a dying practice. Southerners knew it. The leaders of the south knew it.
> Machines are more efficient and require less maintenance than humans..
> ...but you aren't here to have a mature discussion about facts, are you?..you prefer to preen and pose and mock as you display your anti southern bias.
> All good. It'll get sorted one day.
> 
> 
> 
> This is oft repeated bullshit. There would always be more jobs to force slaves to do.
> 
> Not to mention that slavery is wrong and every day it lasted compounded that wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery was a dying practice. The industrial revolution was beginning and machines are more efficient and require less maintenance than farm animals.
> 
> Let me try to understand;
> 
> Your position is that if the south had not been invaded and beaten into submission by the federal government we'd (southerners) all be sitting on our verandas drinking mint juleps while the darkies plowed the fields and picked the cotton?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Farm animals, how charming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? Are machines more efficient than animals or not?
> Take your time.
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you'd be sitting on your veranda while your slaves were cleaning your toilets and any thing else you wanted them to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh..word games..Ok..I'll play
> 
> 
> Prove it. Prove what you just claimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't need to. You need to prove your retarded assertion that machines would have spelled the end of slavery.
Click to expand...

Where did this RAVI idiot come from? So you believe that the Northern people are capable of moving forward from Slavery, yet the Southern People would never move beyond?  THANK YOU SIR!!! This is the type of bigotry that I always enjoy presenting to our people, so that they may see how the Yankee feels about them. It always helps to further our restoration cause. You Yankees are such moral minded people that you moved beyond your rape murder and extermination of the Native American indian by the time your work there was done, around, lets see what year was that???? Perhaps 1910 or so? Then we have your Yankee government finally moving beyond its CDC Tuskegee syphilis experiments on our Black Brothers in Alabama in 1972, and in 1992 Your President Clinton admitted it was a racist experiment and made apologies for it, We're Still waiting for the apology on the U.S. Governments master Race program called Eugenics. There were no Jim Crow laws in the Northern States???? No Sundown towns???? But thats OK, we are an evil people and you Yankees have NO BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS. We would surely be keeping the Black Man enslaved simply for sport, right????  What a bigoted lil fool you are, but again thanks, I will be using you as an example to help our people see that we are NOT compatible. And talk about a long train of abuses.....


----------



## James Everett

Ravi said:


> It was always unconstitutional.
> 
> America lost what? The "right" to enslave black people?


Idiot! The people lost their rights under common law, their federal system of government, their union of States.


----------



## Rotagilla

James Everett said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is oft repeated bullshit. There would always be more jobs to force slaves to do.
> 
> Not to mention that slavery is wrong and every day it lasted compounded that wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was a dying practice. The industrial revolution was beginning and machines are more efficient and require less maintenance than farm animals.
> 
> Let me try to understand;
> 
> Your position is that if the south had not been invaded and beaten into submission by the federal government we'd (southerners) all be sitting on our verandas drinking mint juleps while the darkies plowed the fields and picked the cotton?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Farm animals, how charming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? Are machines more efficient than animals or not?
> Take your time.
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you'd be sitting on your veranda while your slaves were cleaning your toilets and any thing else you wanted them to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh..word games..Ok..I'll play
> 
> 
> Prove it. Prove what you just claimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't need to. You need to prove your retarded assertion that machines would have spelled the end of slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did this RAVI idiot come from? So you believe that the Northern people are capable of moving forward from Slavery, yet the Southern People would never move beyond?  THANK YOU SIR!!! This is the type of bigotry that I always enjoy presenting to our people, so that they may see how the Yankee feels about them. It always helps to further our restoration cause. You Yankees are such moral minded people that you moved beyond your rape murder and extermination of the Native American indian by the time your work there was done, around, lets see what year was that???? Perhaps 1910 or so? Then we have your Yankee government finally moving beyond its CDC Tuskegee syphilis experiments on our Black Brothers in Alabama in 1972, and in 1992 Your President Clinton admitted it was a racist experiment and made apologies for it, We're Still waiting for the apology on the U.S. Governments master Race program called Eugenics. There were no Jim Crow laws in the Northern States???? No Sundown towns???? But thats OK, we are an evil people and you Yankees have NO BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS. We would surely be keeping the Black Man enslaved simply for sport, right????  What a bigoted lil fool you are, but again thanks, I will be using you as an example to help our people see that we are NOT compatible. And talk about a long train of abuses.....
Click to expand...


ravi is just another hyperpartisan, anti southern agitator with bumper sticker slogans and shallow thought processes.
Not worth seriously engaging..you'll just waste your time.she'll try to run you in circles... she isn't here for mature discussion.


----------



## Ravi

Rotagilla said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was always unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Post the article and section/paragraph, then.
> Your opinion doesn't matter here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> America lost what? The "right" to enslave black people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> america lost when the government decided to invade, murder/rape/rob civilians (fellow americans, mind you), steal their property, burn their homes and businesses and wreck their infrastructure because they want to legally and peacefully withdraw from the _union_.
> 
> Why exactly is it so important to you that people trying to exercise their legal rights to withdraw and form their own government should be violently subdued and brought under domination?
> 
> Was king george correct to invade the colonies and murder civilians because the colonists wanted to withdraw from england?
> 
> Apparently, using your logic, if your wife asks for a divorce, you believe it's ok to beat her for it.
> 
> We send troops around the world to help other nations form their own democratic governments...but you think it's ok to murder fellow citizens who wanted the same things...Hypocrisy much?
> 
> Regardless..this country is finished anyway...and the next time a group of states decide to withdraw (and it's coming...probably in the west. Most Southern states would likely join them, too)....there's nothing your gvmt will be able to do about it...so laugh it up, sweetie...
Click to expand...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


----------



## Rotagilla

Ravi said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was always unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Post the article and section/paragraph, then.
> Your opinion doesn't matter here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> America lost what? The "right" to enslave black people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> america lost when the government decided to invade, murder/rape/rob civilians (fellow americans, mind you), steal their property, burn their homes and businesses and wreck their infrastructure because they want to legally and peacefully withdraw from the _union_.
> 
> Why exactly is it so important to you that people trying to exercise their legal rights to withdraw and form their own government should be violently subdued and brought under domination?
> 
> Was king george correct to invade the colonies and murder civilians because the colonists wanted to withdraw from england?
> 
> Apparently, using your logic, if your wife asks for a divorce, you believe it's ok to beat her for it.
> 
> We send troops around the world to help other nations form their own democratic governments...but you think it's ok to murder fellow citizens who wanted the same things...Hypocrisy much?
> 
> Regardless..this country is finished anyway...and the next time a group of states decide to withdraw (and it's coming...probably in the west. Most Southern states would likely join them, too)....there's nothing your gvmt will be able to do about it...so laugh it up, sweetie...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Click to expand...


Oh..you don't want to talk about the war of northern aggression any more...now you want to quote the preamble....
Collapse, partitioning and reconstruction, ravi. 
Corrections will be made.


----------



## James Everett

To all you Yankee's Your deadline is 9pm tonight. You are running out of time!
*WE STILL AWAIT YOUR POSTING OF THE LAW, Article within YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, or Amendment thereof that states that secession is unlawful or illegal. *


----------



## James Everett

Ravi said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was always unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Post the article and section/paragraph, then.
> Your opinion doesn't matter here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> America lost what? The "right" to enslave black people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> america lost when the government decided to invade, murder/rape/rob civilians (fellow americans, mind you), steal their property, burn their homes and businesses and wreck their infrastructure because they want to legally and peacefully withdraw from the _union_.
> 
> Why exactly is it so important to you that people trying to exercise their legal rights to withdraw and form their own government should be violently subdued and brought under domination?
> 
> Was king george correct to invade the colonies and murder civilians because the colonists wanted to withdraw from england?
> 
> Apparently, using your logic, if your wife asks for a divorce, you believe it's ok to beat her for it.
> 
> We send troops around the world to help other nations form their own democratic governments...but you think it's ok to murder fellow citizens who wanted the same things...Hypocrisy much?
> 
> Regardless..this country is finished anyway...and the next time a group of states decide to withdraw (and it's coming...probably in the west. Most Southern states would likely join them, too)....there's nothing your gvmt will be able to do about it...so laugh it up, sweetie...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Click to expand...




Rotagilla said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was a dying practice. The industrial revolution was beginning and machines are more efficient and require less maintenance than farm animals.
> 
> Let me try to understand;
> 
> Your position is that if the south had not been invaded and beaten into submission by the federal government we'd (southerners) all be sitting on our verandas drinking mint juleps while the darkies plowed the fields and picked the cotton?
> 
> 
> 
> Farm animals, how charming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? Are machines more efficient than animals or not?
> Take your time.
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you'd be sitting on your veranda while your slaves were cleaning your toilets and any thing else you wanted them to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh..word games..Ok..I'll play
> 
> 
> Prove it. Prove what you just claimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't need to. You need to prove your retarded assertion that machines would have spelled the end of slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did this RAVI idiot come from? So you believe that the Northern people are capable of moving forward from Slavery, yet the Southern People would never move beyond?  THANK YOU SIR!!! This is the type of bigotry that I always enjoy presenting to our people, so that they may see how the Yankee feels about them. It always helps to further our restoration cause. You Yankees are such moral minded people that you moved beyond your rape murder and extermination of the Native American indian by the time your work there was done, around, lets see what year was that???? Perhaps 1910 or so? Then we have your Yankee government finally moving beyond its CDC Tuskegee syphilis experiments on our Black Brothers in Alabama in 1972, and in 1992 Your President Clinton admitted it was a racist experiment and made apologies for it, We're Still waiting for the apology on the U.S. Governments master Race program called Eugenics. There were no Jim Crow laws in the Northern States???? No Sundown towns???? But thats OK, we are an evil people and you Yankees have NO BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS. We would surely be keeping the Black Man enslaved simply for sport, right????  What a bigoted lil fool you are, but again thanks, I will be using you as an example to help our people see that we are NOT compatible. And talk about a long train of abuses.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ravi is just another hyperpartisan, anti southern agitator with bumper sticker slogans and shallow thought processes.
> Not worth seriously engaging..you'll just waste your time.she'll try to run you in circles... she isn't here for mature discussion.
Click to expand...


----------



## James Everett

Rotagilla said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was a dying practice. The industrial revolution was beginning and machines are more efficient and require less maintenance than farm animals.
> 
> Let me try to understand;
> 
> Your position is that if the south had not been invaded and beaten into submission by the federal government we'd (southerners) all be sitting on our verandas drinking mint juleps while the darkies plowed the fields and picked the cotton?
> 
> 
> 
> Farm animals, how charming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? Are machines more efficient than animals or not?
> Take your time.
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you'd be sitting on your veranda while your slaves were cleaning your toilets and any thing else you wanted them to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh..word games..Ok..I'll play
> 
> 
> Prove it. Prove what you just claimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't need to. You need to prove your retarded assertion that machines would have spelled the end of slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did this RAVI idiot come from? So you believe that the Northern people are capable of moving forward from Slavery, yet the Southern People would never move beyond?  THANK YOU SIR!!! This is the type of bigotry that I always enjoy presenting to our people, so that they may see how the Yankee feels about them. It always helps to further our restoration cause. You Yankees are such moral minded people that you moved beyond your rape murder and extermination of the Native American indian by the time your work there was done, around, lets see what year was that???? Perhaps 1910 or so? Then we have your Yankee government finally moving beyond its CDC Tuskegee syphilis experiments on our Black Brothers in Alabama in 1972, and in 1992 Your President Clinton admitted it was a racist experiment and made apologies for it, We're Still waiting for the apology on the U.S. Governments master Race program called Eugenics. There were no Jim Crow laws in the Northern States???? No Sundown towns???? But thats OK, we are an evil people and you Yankees have NO BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS. We would surely be keeping the Black Man enslaved simply for sport, right????  What a bigoted lil fool you are, but again thanks, I will be using you as an example to help our people see that we are NOT compatible. And talk about a long train of abuses.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ravi is just another hyperpartisan, anti southern agitator with bumper sticker slogans and shallow thought processes.
> Not worth seriously engaging..you'll just waste your time.she'll try to run you in circles... she isn't here for mature discussion.
Click to expand...

Don't allow the fools to continue dragging you down the slavery road, they hold no moral superiority, in fact, just the opposite, keep dragging them back to the legality of secession, there they always lose, and it is the only real and current issue.  They claim to be a "Nation of laws" yet they are the violators thereof. You are doing a good work here Sir.


----------



## Rotagilla

James Everett said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Farm animals, how charming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What? Are machines more efficient than animals or not?
> Take your time.
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you'd be sitting on your veranda while your slaves were cleaning your toilets and any thing else you wanted them to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh..word games..Ok..I'll play
> 
> 
> Prove it. Prove what you just claimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't need to. You need to prove your retarded assertion that machines would have spelled the end of slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did this RAVI idiot come from? So you believe that the Northern people are capable of moving forward from Slavery, yet the Southern People would never move beyond?  THANK YOU SIR!!! This is the type of bigotry that I always enjoy presenting to our people, so that they may see how the Yankee feels about them. It always helps to further our restoration cause. You Yankees are such moral minded people that you moved beyond your rape murder and extermination of the Native American indian by the time your work there was done, around, lets see what year was that???? Perhaps 1910 or so? Then we have your Yankee government finally moving beyond its CDC Tuskegee syphilis experiments on our Black Brothers in Alabama in 1972, and in 1992 Your President Clinton admitted it was a racist experiment and made apologies for it, We're Still waiting for the apology on the U.S. Governments master Race program called Eugenics. There were no Jim Crow laws in the Northern States???? No Sundown towns???? But thats OK, we are an evil people and you Yankees have NO BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS. We would surely be keeping the Black Man enslaved simply for sport, right????  What a bigoted lil fool you are, but again thanks, I will be using you as an example to help our people see that we are NOT compatible. And talk about a long train of abuses.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ravi is just another hyperpartisan, anti southern agitator with bumper sticker slogans and shallow thought processes.
> Not worth seriously engaging..you'll just waste your time.she'll try to run you in circles... she isn't here for mature discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't allow the fools to continue dragging you down the slavery road, they hold no moral superiority, in fact, just the opposite, keep dragging them back to the legality of secession, there they always lose, and it is the only real and current issue.  They claim to be a "Nation of laws" yet they are the violators thereof. You are doing a good work here Sir.
Click to expand...


Thanks.
They're easy..they rely on emotion..I rely on facts.


----------



## paperview

Rotagilla said:


> ....
> 
> Slavery was a dying practice. The industrial revolution was beginning....



Idiot doesn't even know the basics of history.

The Industrial Revolution in America as not "just beginning" in 1860, and with


James Everett said:


> To all you Yankee's Your deadline is 9pm tonight. You are running out of time!
> *WE STILL AWAIT YOUR POSTING OF THE LAW, Article within YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, or Amendment thereof that states that secession is unlawful or illegal. *




And what are you going to do then?

Break loose from the insane asylum you're in and screech cross the underpass onto the highway 
in your johnny reb grays holding the stars and bars in one hand,  pounding out Dixie on your bugle in the other and yelping how 


*the time has come !1!! the south will rise again!!!!*

*You Yankees have pushed us kinfed-retts long enough!!!!!*





<Here's a lil tip: wear a double set of Depends.*>*


----------



## Discombobulated

James Everett said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it's just unfortunate for Confederates that the Supreme Court of the United States of America didn't support their view.   Because that's who determines what's constitutional or not, the Constitution was never legitimately subject to the interpretations of a bunch of politicians who didn't want to give up their slaves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, son..that's not exactly true. Chief Justice Roger Taney favored allowing the south to secede...but it doesn't matter...the south had the legal right to secede and didn't need the supreme court to confirm or deny....Lincoln had to have his war, though and invaded the south
> *
> 
> Recommended Reading:Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Secession, and the President's War Powers*, by James F. Simon (Simon & Schuster). *Publishers Weekly:* This surprisingly taut and gripping book by NYU law professor Simon (What Kind of Nation) examines the limits of presidential prerogative during the Civil War.
> 
> *Lincoln and Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney saw eye to eye on certain matters; both, for example, disliked slavery. But beginning in 1857, when Lincoln criticized Taney's decision in the Dred Scott case, the pair began to spar. They diverged further once Lincoln became president when Taney insisted that secession was constitutional and preferable to bloodshed, and blamed the Civil War on Lincoln. In 1861, Taney argued that Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was illegal. This holding was, Simon argues, "a clarion call for the president to respect the civil liberties of American citizens." Continued below...
> 
> In an 1862 group of cases, Taney joined a minority opinion that Lincoln lacked the authority to order the seizure of Southern ships. Had Taney had the chance, suggests Simon, he would have declared the Emancipation Proclamation unconstitutional; he and Lincoln agreed that the Constitution left slavery up to individual states, but Lincoln argued that the president's war powers trumped states' rights. Simon's focus on Lincoln and Taney makes for a dramatic, charged narrative—and the focus on presidential war powers makes this historical study extremely timely.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it."
> 
> Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"
> 
> At Virginia's ratification convention, the delegates said, "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression."
> 
> In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what "the people" meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong."
> 
> In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.
> 
> On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Maryland Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel said, "Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty."
> 
> The northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.
> 
> Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South's right to secede.
> 
> New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861."
> 
> Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful could produce nothing but evil -- evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content."
> 
> The New York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go."
> 
> In Federalist Paper 45, Madison guaranteed: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
> 
> The South seceded because of Washington's encroachment on that vision. Today, it's worse. Turn Madison's vision on its head, and you have today's America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words:  The Supreme Court in no way ever interpreted secession as being legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> or illegal..it isn't mentioned in the constitution, is it?
> The states formed the government, not the other way around.
> ..and when citizens decide to withdraw from this government again the supreme court won't have jurisdiction or power.
> 
> The 10th Amendment states:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Secession is not prohibited anywhere in the constitution and was considered an obvious right of all States until after the War for Southern Independence.
> Because the Constitution does not prohibit secession, it is therefore a power delegated to the States.
> 
> Remember that the States are independent and sovereign, and they created the Union, not the other way around.
> The USA is simply an agent for the individual States. Without the threat of leaving, the States are completely powerless to the Federal Government.
> 
> Why is it such a detestable idea to you that people should be free to democratically withdraw and form their own government that suits them better?
> 
> Why are you against democracy and respecting the choice of the people even if you disagree with them?
> You're obviously not a southerner, so what's it to you? We're all backward, inbred rednecks anyway, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you can't get all parties concerned to agree to a formalized legal process then you have exactly nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Discombobulated,
> Are you saying that the U.S. is NOT a nation of laws? That the U.S. would never agree to follow the law, that there are different laws for black and white, rich and poor, government and citizen? OH SURELY ONE COULD NEVER STATE SUCH!!!  Of course you know I am being sarcastic. Sir, you know nothing of the process we have established to restore our CSA government, to return to the wholly federal system under the Articles of Confederation and to end the occupation. Take our case before YOUR SCOTUS? Take our case before the World Court? I think not!!!! To do such would establish that either have jurisdiction, yet neither does. We have our path established, and we will see it through. CSAgov.org
Click to expand...


I know far more about the history of the Confederacy than you and all your dimwitted friends put together.


----------



## gipper

Discombobulated said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, son..that's not exactly true. Chief Justice Roger Taney favored allowing the south to secede...but it doesn't matter...the south had the legal right to secede and didn't need the supreme court to confirm or deny....Lincoln had to have his war, though and invaded the south
> *
> 
> Recommended Reading:Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Secession, and the President's War Powers*, by James F. Simon (Simon & Schuster). *Publishers Weekly:* This surprisingly taut and gripping book by NYU law professor Simon (What Kind of Nation) examines the limits of presidential prerogative during the Civil War.
> 
> *Lincoln and Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney saw eye to eye on certain matters; both, for example, disliked slavery. But beginning in 1857, when Lincoln criticized Taney's decision in the Dred Scott case, the pair began to spar. They diverged further once Lincoln became president when Taney insisted that secession was constitutional and preferable to bloodshed, and blamed the Civil War on Lincoln. In 1861, Taney argued that Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was illegal. This holding was, Simon argues, "a clarion call for the president to respect the civil liberties of American citizens." Continued below...
> 
> In an 1862 group of cases, Taney joined a minority opinion that Lincoln lacked the authority to order the seizure of Southern ships. Had Taney had the chance, suggests Simon, he would have declared the Emancipation Proclamation unconstitutional; he and Lincoln agreed that the Constitution left slavery up to individual states, but Lincoln argued that the president's war powers trumped states' rights. Simon's focus on Lincoln and Taney makes for a dramatic, charged narrative—and the focus on presidential war powers makes this historical study extremely timely.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it."
> 
> Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"
> 
> At Virginia's ratification convention, the delegates said, "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression."
> 
> In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what "the people" meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong."
> 
> In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.
> 
> On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Maryland Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel said, "Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty."
> 
> The northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.
> 
> Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South's right to secede.
> 
> New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861."
> 
> Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful could produce nothing but evil -- evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content."
> 
> The New York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go."
> 
> In Federalist Paper 45, Madison guaranteed: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
> 
> The South seceded because of Washington's encroachment on that vision. Today, it's worse. Turn Madison's vision on its head, and you have today's America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words:  The Supreme Court in no way ever interpreted secession as being legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> or illegal..it isn't mentioned in the constitution, is it?
> The states formed the government, not the other way around.
> ..and when citizens decide to withdraw from this government again the supreme court won't have jurisdiction or power.
> 
> The 10th Amendment states:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Secession is not prohibited anywhere in the constitution and was considered an obvious right of all States until after the War for Southern Independence.
> Because the Constitution does not prohibit secession, it is therefore a power delegated to the States.
> 
> Remember that the States are independent and sovereign, and they created the Union, not the other way around.
> The USA is simply an agent for the individual States. Without the threat of leaving, the States are completely powerless to the Federal Government.
> 
> Why is it such a detestable idea to you that people should be free to democratically withdraw and form their own government that suits them better?
> 
> Why are you against democracy and respecting the choice of the people even if you disagree with them?
> You're obviously not a southerner, so what's it to you? We're all backward, inbred rednecks anyway, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you can't get all parties concerned to agree to a formalized legal process then you have exactly nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Discombobulated,
> Are you saying that the U.S. is NOT a nation of laws? That the U.S. would never agree to follow the law, that there are different laws for black and white, rich and poor, government and citizen? OH SURELY ONE COULD NEVER STATE SUCH!!!  Of course you know I am being sarcastic. Sir, you know nothing of the process we have established to restore our CSA government, to return to the wholly federal system under the Articles of Confederation and to end the occupation. Take our case before YOUR SCOTUS? Take our case before the World Court? I think not!!!! To do such would establish that either have jurisdiction, yet neither does. We have our path established, and we will see it through. CSAgov.org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know far more about the history of the Confederacy than you and all your dimwitted friends put together.
Click to expand...


And yet, you have failed to prove it.


----------



## Discombobulated

whitehall said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *whitehall snow, you know nothing.*
> 
> *Lincoln was trying to keep the Union together.*
> 
> 
> *All the South had to do was*
> 
> *(1)  Keep slavery in the old South*
> 
> *(2)  Respect federal property*
> 
> *(3)  Follow constitutional, electoral process*
> 
> *Instead, the South fired on Old Glory and pissed on the patriots’ graves.*
> 
> *The northern democrats, who had been demanding compromise until the firing on Ft. Sumter, joined the GOP and joined in murdering the Old south.*
> 
> *Only the confederates are guilty of the carnage; it came because of their unweaning pride.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was Lincoln's freaking only mission. He failed to encourage a bi-partisan compromise in the border states. Surely Lincoln understood that a year or two or three or ten with political maneuvering and maybe concessions would avoid a freaking bloody Civil War. You have to understand that Civil War was in a scale of one to ten about number fifteen in the logical political options available to the president. Lincoln failed to keep the Union together.
Click to expand...


Absolute and total horse shit.  Not much of a historian.......are you. Perhaps you can describe exactly what actions Lincoln took that prompted  secession.  Oh wait, that's right, he didn't do or say anything that had anything to do with secession.  Lincoln was elected and then secession started before he took office.....based on nothing but the contrived perception of what he might do.


----------



## Discombobulated

gipper said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words:  The Supreme Court in no way ever interpreted secession as being legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or illegal..it isn't mentioned in the constitution, is it?
> The states formed the government, not the other way around.
> ..and when citizens decide to withdraw from this government again the supreme court won't have jurisdiction or power.
> 
> The 10th Amendment states:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Secession is not prohibited anywhere in the constitution and was considered an obvious right of all States until after the War for Southern Independence.
> Because the Constitution does not prohibit secession, it is therefore a power delegated to the States.
> 
> Remember that the States are independent and sovereign, and they created the Union, not the other way around.
> The USA is simply an agent for the individual States. Without the threat of leaving, the States are completely powerless to the Federal Government.
> 
> Why is it such a detestable idea to you that people should be free to democratically withdraw and form their own government that suits them better?
> 
> Why are you against democracy and respecting the choice of the people even if you disagree with them?
> You're obviously not a southerner, so what's it to you? We're all backward, inbred rednecks anyway, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you can't get all parties concerned to agree to a formalized legal process then you have exactly nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Discombobulated,
> Are you saying that the U.S. is NOT a nation of laws? That the U.S. would never agree to follow the law, that there are different laws for black and white, rich and poor, government and citizen? OH SURELY ONE COULD NEVER STATE SUCH!!!  Of course you know I am being sarcastic. Sir, you know nothing of the process we have established to restore our CSA government, to return to the wholly federal system under the Articles of Confederation and to end the occupation. Take our case before YOUR SCOTUS? Take our case before the World Court? I think not!!!! To do such would establish that either have jurisdiction, yet neither does. We have our path established, and we will see it through. CSAgov.org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know far more about the history of the Confederacy than you and all your dimwitted friends put together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet, you have failed to prove it.
Click to expand...


Oh please......like you know anything about anything.


----------



## Discombobulated

James Everett said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Farm animals, how charming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What? Are machines more efficient than animals or not?
> Take your time.
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you'd be sitting on your veranda while your slaves were cleaning your toilets and any thing else you wanted them to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh..word games..Ok..I'll play
> 
> 
> Prove it. Prove what you just claimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't need to. You need to prove your retarded assertion that machines would have spelled the end of slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did this RAVI idiot come from? So you believe that the Northern people are capable of moving forward from Slavery, yet the Southern People would never move beyond?  THANK YOU SIR!!! This is the type of bigotry that I always enjoy presenting to our people, so that they may see how the Yankee feels about them. It always helps to further our restoration cause. You Yankees are such moral minded people that you moved beyond your rape murder and extermination of the Native American indian by the time your work there was done, around, lets see what year was that???? Perhaps 1910 or so? Then we have your Yankee government finally moving beyond its CDC Tuskegee syphilis experiments on our Black Brothers in Alabama in 1972, and in 1992 Your President Clinton admitted it was a racist experiment and made apologies for it, We're Still waiting for the apology on the U.S. Governments master Race program called Eugenics. There were no Jim Crow laws in the Northern States???? No Sundown towns???? But thats OK, we are an evil people and you Yankees have NO BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS. We would surely be keeping the Black Man enslaved simply for sport, right????  What a bigoted lil fool you are, but again thanks, I will be using you as an example to help our people see that we are NOT compatible. And talk about a long train of abuses.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ravi is just another hyperpartisan, anti southern agitator with bumper sticker slogans and shallow thought processes.
> Not worth seriously engaging..you'll just waste your time.she'll try to run you in circles... she isn't here for mature discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't allow the fools to continue dragging you down the slavery road, they hold no moral superiority, in fact, just the opposite, keep dragging them back to the legality of secession, there they always lose, and it is the only real and current issue.  They claim to be a "Nation of laws" yet they are the violators thereof. You are doing a good work here Sir.
Click to expand...


Yeah, keep dragging them back into your imagination of the law while pretending slavery wasn't the primary cause of the Civil War.  Run with that.


----------



## paperview

Discombobulated said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *whitehall snow, you know nothing.*
> 
> *Lincoln was trying to keep the Union together.*
> 
> 
> *All the South had to do was*
> 
> *(1)  Keep slavery in the old South*
> 
> *(2)  Respect federal property*
> 
> *(3)  Follow constitutional, electoral process*
> 
> *Instead, the South fired on Old Glory and pissed on the patriots’ graves.*
> 
> *The northern democrats, who had been demanding compromise until the firing on Ft. Sumter, joined the GOP and joined in murdering the Old south.*
> 
> *Only the confederates are guilty of the carnage; it came because of their unweaning pride.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was Lincoln's freaking only mission. He failed to encourage a bi-partisan compromise in the border states. Surely Lincoln understood that a year or two or three or ten with political maneuvering and maybe concessions would avoid a freaking bloody Civil War. You have to understand that Civil War was in a scale of one to ten about number fifteen in the logical political options available to the president. Lincoln failed to keep the Union together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute and total horse shit.  Not much of a historian.......are you. Perhaps you can describe exactly what actions Lincoln took that prompted  secession.  Oh wait, that's right, he didn't do or say anything that had anything to do with secession.  Lincoln was elected and then secession started before he took office.....based on nothing but the contrived perception of what he might do.
Click to expand...

I know huh?

These people don't even know the slightest bit of history of the run up to the war it seems or   the basics of the timeline.

The idiot Rogatini thinks the Industrial Revolution was just_ beginning_ in the 1860's../

Sheesh. 

It just makes you shake your head at the poverty of knowledge parading as educated here.


----------



## Discombobulated

paperview said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *whitehall snow, you know nothing.*
> 
> *Lincoln was trying to keep the Union together.*
> 
> 
> *All the South had to do was*
> 
> *(1)  Keep slavery in the old South*
> 
> *(2)  Respect federal property*
> 
> *(3)  Follow constitutional, electoral process*
> 
> *Instead, the South fired on Old Glory and pissed on the patriots’ graves.*
> 
> *The northern democrats, who had been demanding compromise until the firing on Ft. Sumter, joined the GOP and joined in murdering the Old south.*
> 
> *Only the confederates are guilty of the carnage; it came because of their unweaning pride.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was Lincoln's freaking only mission. He failed to encourage a bi-partisan compromise in the border states. Surely Lincoln understood that a year or two or three or ten with political maneuvering and maybe concessions would avoid a freaking bloody Civil War. You have to understand that Civil War was in a scale of one to ten about number fifteen in the logical political options available to the president. Lincoln failed to keep the Union together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute and total horse shit.  Not much of a historian.......are you. Perhaps you can describe exactly what actions Lincoln took that prompted  secession.  Oh wait, that's right, he didn't do or say anything that had anything to do with secession.  Lincoln was elected and then secession started before he took office.....based on nothing but the contrived perception of what he might do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know huh?
> 
> These people don't even know the slightest bit of history of the run up to the war it seems or   the basics of the timeline.
> 
> The idiot Rogatini thinks the Industrial Revolution was just_ beginning_ in the 1860's../
> 
> Sheesh.
> 
> It just makes you shake your head at the poverty of knowledge parading as educated here.
Click to expand...


Holy shit!  Hard to imagine anyone being that ignorant.


----------



## paperview

Discombobulated said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *whitehall snow, you know nothing.*
> 
> *Lincoln was trying to keep the Union together.*
> 
> 
> *All the South had to do was*
> 
> *(1)  Keep slavery in the old South*
> 
> *(2)  Respect federal property*
> 
> *(3)  Follow constitutional, electoral process*
> 
> *Instead, the South fired on Old Glory and pissed on the patriots’ graves.*
> 
> *The northern democrats, who had been demanding compromise until the firing on Ft. Sumter, joined the GOP and joined in murdering the Old south.*
> 
> *Only the confederates are guilty of the carnage; it came because of their unweaning pride.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was Lincoln's freaking only mission. He failed to encourage a bi-partisan compromise in the border states. Surely Lincoln understood that a year or two or three or ten with political maneuvering and maybe concessions would avoid a freaking bloody Civil War. You have to understand that Civil War was in a scale of one to ten about number fifteen in the logical political options available to the president. Lincoln failed to keep the Union together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute and total horse shit.  Not much of a historian.......are you. Perhaps you can describe exactly what actions Lincoln took that prompted  secession.  Oh wait, that's right, he didn't do or say anything that had anything to do with secession.  Lincoln was elected and then secession started before he took office.....based on nothing but the contrived perception of what he might do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know huh?
> 
> These people don't even know the slightest bit of history of the run up to the war it seems or   the basics of the timeline.
> 
> The idiot Rogatini thinks the Industrial Revolution was just_ beginning_ in the 1860's../
> 
> Sheesh.
> 
> It just makes you shake your head at the poverty of knowledge parading as educated here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy shit!  Hard to imagine anyone being that ignorant.
Click to expand...

And the Stormfront refugee also keeps repeating how "Slavery was a dying practice."

It is astounding Lost Causers (and those ignorant of the numbers) could even begin to say things like that.

I mean, let's posit this for a minute...were the slaveholders just giving up their slaves?  No.  Were slave auctions being held all over the south and slave prices holding steady and strong?  Yes.  Were they still breeding slaves, literally practicing eugenics by forced sex coupling with the biggest and sturdiest and also separating families to get their longest dollar for the "farm tools?"  Yes. 

Let's look at the  combined value of all the slaves for those slaveowners:* over 3 billion dollars.*

Three* BILLION*. Not in today dollars, adjusted for inflation -- Three BILLION in 1860 dollars.

*If you wanted to buy all the railroads, factories and banks in the entire country at that time, it would have only cost you about $2.5 billion.

----> slaves were by far the largest concentration of property in the country. A stunning figure.*

Nearly 4 million slaves out of a total population of nine million in the South.

More than one in four rebels who took up arms against the North came from slaveholding families (and one in two in a few other states).  Slavery touched the lives of nearly all Southerns. It was literally the human lifeblood of their economy* and they were willing to kill and die to the death to defend,  protect and preserve it. *And did.


And there are still some who will say, after all this...."it was dying out" -- expecting people to take them seriously.


----------



## gipper

paperview said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *whitehall snow, you know nothing.*
> 
> *Lincoln was trying to keep the Union together.*
> 
> 
> *All the South had to do was*
> 
> *(1)  Keep slavery in the old South*
> 
> *(2)  Respect federal property*
> 
> *(3)  Follow constitutional, electoral process*
> 
> *Instead, the South fired on Old Glory and pissed on the patriots’ graves.*
> 
> *The northern democrats, who had been demanding compromise until the firing on Ft. Sumter, joined the GOP and joined in murdering the Old south.*
> 
> *Only the confederates are guilty of the carnage; it came because of their unweaning pride.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was Lincoln's freaking only mission. He failed to encourage a bi-partisan compromise in the border states. Surely Lincoln understood that a year or two or three or ten with political maneuvering and maybe concessions would avoid a freaking bloody Civil War. You have to understand that Civil War was in a scale of one to ten about number fifteen in the logical political options available to the president. Lincoln failed to keep the Union together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute and total horse shit.  Not much of a historian.......are you. Perhaps you can describe exactly what actions Lincoln took that prompted  secession.  Oh wait, that's right, he didn't do or say anything that had anything to do with secession.  Lincoln was elected and then secession started before he took office.....based on nothing but the contrived perception of what he might do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know huh?
> 
> These people don't even know the slightest bit of history of the run up to the war it seems or   the basics of the timeline.
> 
> The idiot Rogatini thinks the Industrial Revolution was just_ beginning_ in the 1860's../
> 
> Sheesh.
> 
> It just makes you shake your head at the poverty of knowledge parading as educated here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy shit!  Hard to imagine anyone being that ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the Stormfront refugee also keeps repeating how "Slavery was a dying practice."
> 
> It is astounding Lost Causers (and those ignorant of the numbers) could even begin to say things like that.
> 
> I mean, let's posit this for a minute...were the slaveholders just giving up their slaves?  No.  Were slave auctions being held all over the south and slave prices holding steady and strong?  Yes.  Were they still breeding slaves, literally practicing eugenics by forced sex coupling with the biggest and sturdiest and also separating families to get their longest dollar for the "farm tools?"  Yes.
> 
> Let's look at the  combined value of all the slaves for those slaveowners:* over 3 billion dollars.*
> 
> Three* BILLION*. Not in today dollars, adjusted for inflation -- Three BILLION in 1860 dollars.
> 
> *If you wanted to buy all the railroads, factories and banks in the entire country at that time, it would have only cost you about $2.5 billion.
> 
> ----> slaves were by far the largest concentration of property in the country. A stunning figure.*
> 
> Nearly 4 million slaves out of a total population of nine million in the South.
> 
> More than one in four rebels who took up arms against the North came from slaveholding families (and one in two in a few other states).  Slavery touched the lives of nearly all Southerns. It was literally the human lifeblood of their economy* and they were willing to kill and die to the death to defend,  protect and preserve it. *And did.
> 
> 
> And there are still some who will say, after all this...."it was dying out" -- expecting people to take them seriously.
Click to expand...


Amazing how Lincoln cultists go on and on about slavery.  Ignoring the fact that their beloved Dishonest Abe had no intention of freeing the slaves.  His dishonest Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves ONLY in the Confederacy, in which he had no authority...keeping slavery legal in border states.

To his dying day, he wished to deport all blacks.  

He was known to be an fervent racist, even for his time. 

How does the cultist reconcile these facts?


----------



## Discombobulated

gipper said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was Lincoln's freaking only mission. He failed to encourage a bi-partisan compromise in the border states. Surely Lincoln understood that a year or two or three or ten with political maneuvering and maybe concessions would avoid a freaking bloody Civil War. You have to understand that Civil War was in a scale of one to ten about number fifteen in the logical political options available to the president. Lincoln failed to keep the Union together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute and total horse shit.  Not much of a historian.......are you. Perhaps you can describe exactly what actions Lincoln took that prompted  secession.  Oh wait, that's right, he didn't do or say anything that had anything to do with secession.  Lincoln was elected and then secession started before he took office.....based on nothing but the contrived perception of what he might do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know huh?
> 
> These people don't even know the slightest bit of history of the run up to the war it seems or   the basics of the timeline.
> 
> The idiot Rogatini thinks the Industrial Revolution was just_ beginning_ in the 1860's../
> 
> Sheesh.
> 
> It just makes you shake your head at the poverty of knowledge parading as educated here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy shit!  Hard to imagine anyone being that ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the Stormfront refugee also keeps repeating how "Slavery was a dying practice."
> 
> It is astounding Lost Causers (and those ignorant of the numbers) could even begin to say things like that.
> 
> I mean, let's posit this for a minute...were the slaveholders just giving up their slaves?  No.  Were slave auctions being held all over the south and slave prices holding steady and strong?  Yes.  Were they still breeding slaves, literally practicing eugenics by forced sex coupling with the biggest and sturdiest and also separating families to get their longest dollar for the "farm tools?"  Yes.
> 
> Let's look at the  combined value of all the slaves for those slaveowners:* over 3 billion dollars.*
> 
> Three* BILLION*. Not in today dollars, adjusted for inflation -- Three BILLION in 1860 dollars.
> 
> *If you wanted to buy all the railroads, factories and banks in the entire country at that time, it would have only cost you about $2.5 billion.
> 
> ----> slaves were by far the largest concentration of property in the country. A stunning figure.*
> 
> Nearly 4 million slaves out of a total population of nine million in the South.
> 
> More than one in four rebels who took up arms against the North came from slaveholding families (and one in two in a few other states).  Slavery touched the lives of nearly all Southerns. It was literally the human lifeblood of their economy* and they were willing to kill and die to the death to defend,  protect and preserve it. *And did.
> 
> 
> And there are still some who will say, after all this...."it was dying out" -- expecting people to take them seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amazing how Lincoln cultists go on and on about slavery.  Ignoring the fact that their beloved Dishonest Abe had no intention of freeing the slaves.  His dishonest Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves ONLY in the Confederacy, in which he had no authority...keeping slavery legal in border states.
> 
> To his dying day, he wished to deport all blacks.
> 
> He was known to be an fervent racist, even for his time.
> 
> How does the cultist reconcile these facts?
Click to expand...


Sounds like the Confederacy really had no reason at all to secede then.....did they.   If Lincoln had no intention of freeing slaves then the Confederates were just plain stupid.....weren't they.


----------



## whitehall

The country literally fell apart under Lincoln's watch. He should have lied, made promises, offered compromises he knew he couldn't keep and even offered to kiss the ass of every southern governor if it would have kept the Union together for another month or year or two until people cooled down.. He failed to do so and compounded it by appointing a recovering alcoholic general to make war on American citizens raiding farms, burning barns and killing livestock and sometimes hanging citizens. Another general who may have been certifiably insane and thought he was "God's terrible swift sword" took it upon himself to punish Americans by setting fire to a city.


----------



## paperview

whitehall said:


> The country literally fell apart under Lincoln's watch. He should have lied, made promises, offered compromises he knew he couldn't keep and even offered to kiss the ass of every southern governor if it would have kept the Union together for another month or year or two until people cooled down.. He failed to do so and compounded it by appointing a recovering alcoholic general to make war on American citizens raiding farms, burning barns and killing livestock and sometimes hanging citizens. Another general who may have been certifiably insane and thought he was "God's terrible swift sword" took it upon himself to punish Americans by setting fire to a city.




This from the braintrust of whitehall, earlier:

QUOTE=whitehall === Lincoln seems to be more than a mortal human in the minds of the slobbering elitist low information literary geniuses in the last hundred and fifty years but he couldn't keep the Union together as president.
With all the slick comments and the alleged political skill, Lincoln couldn't hold the freaking Country together. If Lincoln did the right thing and declined to run for a second term the Union would have been preserved for at least another four years and slavery would have faded away with the industrial revolution."

Is that friggin' awesome or what?


----------



## gipper

Discombobulated said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute and total horse shit.  Not much of a historian.......are you. Perhaps you can describe exactly what actions Lincoln took that prompted  secession.  Oh wait, that's right, he didn't do or say anything that had anything to do with secession.  Lincoln was elected and then secession started before he took office.....based on nothing but the contrived perception of what he might do.
> 
> 
> 
> I know huh?
> 
> These people don't even know the slightest bit of history of the run up to the war it seems or   the basics of the timeline.
> 
> The idiot Rogatini thinks the Industrial Revolution was just_ beginning_ in the 1860's../
> 
> Sheesh.
> 
> It just makes you shake your head at the poverty of knowledge parading as educated here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy shit!  Hard to imagine anyone being that ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the Stormfront refugee also keeps repeating how "Slavery was a dying practice."
> 
> It is astounding Lost Causers (and those ignorant of the numbers) could even begin to say things like that.
> 
> I mean, let's posit this for a minute...were the slaveholders just giving up their slaves?  No.  Were slave auctions being held all over the south and slave prices holding steady and strong?  Yes.  Were they still breeding slaves, literally practicing eugenics by forced sex coupling with the biggest and sturdiest and also separating families to get their longest dollar for the "farm tools?"  Yes.
> 
> Let's look at the  combined value of all the slaves for those slaveowners:* over 3 billion dollars.*
> 
> Three* BILLION*. Not in today dollars, adjusted for inflation -- Three BILLION in 1860 dollars.
> 
> *If you wanted to buy all the railroads, factories and banks in the entire country at that time, it would have only cost you about $2.5 billion.
> 
> ----> slaves were by far the largest concentration of property in the country. A stunning figure.*
> 
> Nearly 4 million slaves out of a total population of nine million in the South.
> 
> More than one in four rebels who took up arms against the North came from slaveholding families (and one in two in a few other states).  Slavery touched the lives of nearly all Southerns. It was literally the human lifeblood of their economy* and they were willing to kill and die to the death to defend,  protect and preserve it. *And did.
> 
> 
> And there are still some who will say, after all this...."it was dying out" -- expecting people to take them seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amazing how Lincoln cultists go on and on about slavery.  Ignoring the fact that their beloved Dishonest Abe had no intention of freeing the slaves.  His dishonest Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves ONLY in the Confederacy, in which he had no authority...keeping slavery legal in border states.
> 
> To his dying day, he wished to deport all blacks.
> 
> He was known to be an fervent racist, even for his time.
> 
> How does the cultist reconcile these facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like the Confederacy really had no reason at all to secede then.....did they.   If Lincoln had no intention of freeing slaves then the Confederates were just plain stupid.....weren't they.
Click to expand...


That post clearly reflects your lack of knowledge of the Civil War and yet you claim to know it all.

You can't fix stupid!


----------



## JakeStarkey

The South seceded months before Lincoln was inaugurated.

The South was not coming back peacefully.

The South did not respect constitutional, electoral process.

The South fired on Old Glory.

Yep, Lincoln was at fault.


----------



## Discombobulated

gipper said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know huh?
> 
> These people don't even know the slightest bit of history of the run up to the war it seems or   the basics of the timeline.
> 
> The idiot Rogatini thinks the Industrial Revolution was just_ beginning_ in the 1860's../
> 
> Sheesh.
> 
> It just makes you shake your head at the poverty of knowledge parading as educated here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Holy shit!  Hard to imagine anyone being that ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the Stormfront refugee also keeps repeating how "Slavery was a dying practice."
> 
> It is astounding Lost Causers (and those ignorant of the numbers) could even begin to say things like that.
> 
> I mean, let's posit this for a minute...were the slaveholders just giving up their slaves?  No.  Were slave auctions being held all over the south and slave prices holding steady and strong?  Yes.  Were they still breeding slaves, literally practicing eugenics by forced sex coupling with the biggest and sturdiest and also separating families to get their longest dollar for the "farm tools?"  Yes.
> 
> Let's look at the  combined value of all the slaves for those slaveowners:* over 3 billion dollars.*
> 
> Three* BILLION*. Not in today dollars, adjusted for inflation -- Three BILLION in 1860 dollars.
> 
> *If you wanted to buy all the railroads, factories and banks in the entire country at that time, it would have only cost you about $2.5 billion.
> 
> ----> slaves were by far the largest concentration of property in the country. A stunning figure.*
> 
> Nearly 4 million slaves out of a total population of nine million in the South.
> 
> More than one in four rebels who took up arms against the North came from slaveholding families (and one in two in a few other states).  Slavery touched the lives of nearly all Southerns. It was literally the human lifeblood of their economy* and they were willing to kill and die to the death to defend,  protect and preserve it. *And did.
> 
> 
> And there are still some who will say, after all this...."it was dying out" -- expecting people to take them seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amazing how Lincoln cultists go on and on about slavery.  Ignoring the fact that their beloved Dishonest Abe had no intention of freeing the slaves.  His dishonest Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves ONLY in the Confederacy, in which he had no authority...keeping slavery legal in border states.
> 
> To his dying day, he wished to deport all blacks.
> 
> He was known to be an fervent racist, even for his time.
> 
> How does the cultist reconcile these facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like the Confederacy really had no reason at all to secede then.....did they.   If Lincoln had no intention of freeing slaves then the Confederates were just plain stupid.....weren't they.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That post clearly reflects your lack of knowledge of the Civil War and yet you claim to know it all.
> 
> You can't fix stupid!
Click to expand...


In other words:  You can't respond because you don't know anything.


----------



## Discombobulated

whitehall said:


> The country literally fell apart under Lincoln's watch. He should have lied, made promises, offered compromises he knew he couldn't keep and even offered to kiss the ass of every southern governor if it would have kept the Union together for another month or year or two until people cooled down.. He failed to do so and compounded it by appointing a recovering alcoholic general to make war on American citizens raiding farms, burning barns and killing livestock and sometimes hanging citizens. Another general who may have been certifiably insane and thought he was "God's terrible swift sword" took it upon himself to punish Americans by setting fire to a city.



Sounds like a sure recipe for dismembering the nation.  Maybe the President should have responded to treason by simply doing nothing.


----------



## paperview

You unreconstructed rebels -- don't make me break out my timeline again.

Some of the regular  posters here are tired of seeing it.


----------



## gipper

Discombobulated said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy shit!  Hard to imagine anyone being that ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> And the Stormfront refugee also keeps repeating how "Slavery was a dying practice."
> 
> It is astounding Lost Causers (and those ignorant of the numbers) could even begin to say things like that.
> 
> I mean, let's posit this for a minute...were the slaveholders just giving up their slaves?  No.  Were slave auctions being held all over the south and slave prices holding steady and strong?  Yes.  Were they still breeding slaves, literally practicing eugenics by forced sex coupling with the biggest and sturdiest and also separating families to get their longest dollar for the "farm tools?"  Yes.
> 
> Let's look at the  combined value of all the slaves for those slaveowners:* over 3 billion dollars.*
> 
> Three* BILLION*. Not in today dollars, adjusted for inflation -- Three BILLION in 1860 dollars.
> 
> *If you wanted to buy all the railroads, factories and banks in the entire country at that time, it would have only cost you about $2.5 billion.
> 
> ----> slaves were by far the largest concentration of property in the country. A stunning figure.*
> 
> Nearly 4 million slaves out of a total population of nine million in the South.
> 
> More than one in four rebels who took up arms against the North came from slaveholding families (and one in two in a few other states).  Slavery touched the lives of nearly all Southerns. It was literally the human lifeblood of their economy* and they were willing to kill and die to the death to defend,  protect and preserve it. *And did.
> 
> 
> And there are still some who will say, after all this...."it was dying out" -- expecting people to take them seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amazing how Lincoln cultists go on and on about slavery.  Ignoring the fact that their beloved Dishonest Abe had no intention of freeing the slaves.  His dishonest Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves ONLY in the Confederacy, in which he had no authority...keeping slavery legal in border states.
> 
> To his dying day, he wished to deport all blacks.
> 
> He was known to be an fervent racist, even for his time.
> 
> How does the cultist reconcile these facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like the Confederacy really had no reason at all to secede then.....did they.   If Lincoln had no intention of freeing slaves then the Confederates were just plain stupid.....weren't they.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That post clearly reflects your lack of knowledge of the Civil War and yet you claim to know it all.
> 
> You can't fix stupid!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words:  You can't respond because you don't know anything.
Click to expand...


In other words, you have proven an inability to understand the reasons for the War of Northern Aggression.

The southern man fought because his land was invaded by an enemy bent on destruction.

Lincoln invaded not to outlaw slavery, but to keep the South from seceding and force them to submit to his rule...as tyrants have done throughout history.  

You now know more about the War of Northern Aggression than you ever did before, but I am betting it won't take.


----------



## James Everett

A


JakeStarkey said:


> The South seceded months before Lincoln was inaugurated.
> 
> The South was not coming back peacefully.
> 
> The South did not respect constitutional, electoral process.
> 
> The South fired on Old Glory.
> 
> Yep, Lincoln was at fault.


gain Jake ole boy please explain the cinstitutional process that the South did not follow.


----------



## Discombobulated

gipper said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the Stormfront refugee also keeps repeating how "Slavery was a dying practice."
> 
> It is astounding Lost Causers (and those ignorant of the numbers) could even begin to say things like that.
> 
> I mean, let's posit this for a minute...were the slaveholders just giving up their slaves?  No.  Were slave auctions being held all over the south and slave prices holding steady and strong?  Yes.  Were they still breeding slaves, literally practicing eugenics by forced sex coupling with the biggest and sturdiest and also separating families to get their longest dollar for the "farm tools?"  Yes.
> 
> Let's look at the  combined value of all the slaves for those slaveowners:* over 3 billion dollars.*
> 
> Three* BILLION*. Not in today dollars, adjusted for inflation -- Three BILLION in 1860 dollars.
> 
> *If you wanted to buy all the railroads, factories and banks in the entire country at that time, it would have only cost you about $2.5 billion.
> 
> ----> slaves were by far the largest concentration of property in the country. A stunning figure.*
> 
> Nearly 4 million slaves out of a total population of nine million in the South.
> 
> More than one in four rebels who took up arms against the North came from slaveholding families (and one in two in a few other states).  Slavery touched the lives of nearly all Southerns. It was literally the human lifeblood of their economy* and they were willing to kill and die to the death to defend,  protect and preserve it. *And did.
> 
> 
> And there are still some who will say, after all this...."it was dying out" -- expecting people to take them seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how Lincoln cultists go on and on about slavery.  Ignoring the fact that their beloved Dishonest Abe had no intention of freeing the slaves.  His dishonest Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves ONLY in the Confederacy, in which he had no authority...keeping slavery legal in border states.
> 
> To his dying day, he wished to deport all blacks.
> 
> He was known to be an fervent racist, even for his time.
> 
> How does the cultist reconcile these facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like the Confederacy really had no reason at all to secede then.....did they.   If Lincoln had no intention of freeing slaves then the Confederates were just plain stupid.....weren't they.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That post clearly reflects your lack of knowledge of the Civil War and yet you claim to know it all.
> 
> You can't fix stupid!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words:  You can't respond because you don't know anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, you have proven an inability to understand the reasons for the War of Northern Aggression.
> 
> The southern man fought because his land was invaded by an enemy bent on destruction.
> 
> Lincoln invaded not to outlaw slavery, but to keep the South from seceding and force them to submit to his rule...as tyrants have done throughout history.
> 
> You now know more about the War of Northern Aggression than you ever did before, but I am betting it won't take.
Click to expand...

 So then you apparently have no idea what led to secession.


----------



## paperview

gipper said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the Stormfront refugee also keeps repeating how "Slavery was a dying practice."
> 
> It is astounding Lost Causers (and those ignorant of the numbers) could even begin to say things like that.
> 
> I mean, let's posit this for a minute...were the slaveholders just giving up their slaves?  No.  Were slave auctions being held all over the south and slave prices holding steady and strong?  Yes.  Were they still breeding slaves, literally practicing eugenics by forced sex coupling with the biggest and sturdiest and also separating families to get their longest dollar for the "farm tools?"  Yes.
> 
> Let's look at the  combined value of all the slaves for those slaveowners:* over 3 billion dollars.*
> 
> Three* BILLION*. Not in today dollars, adjusted for inflation -- Three BILLION in 1860 dollars.
> 
> *If you wanted to buy all the railroads, factories and banks in the entire country at that time, it would have only cost you about $2.5 billion.
> 
> ----> slaves were by far the largest concentration of property in the country. A stunning figure.*
> 
> Nearly 4 million slaves out of a total population of nine million in the South.
> 
> More than one in four rebels who took up arms against the North came from slaveholding families (and one in two in a few other states).  Slavery touched the lives of nearly all Southerns. It was literally the human lifeblood of their economy* and they were willing to kill and die to the death to defend,  protect and preserve it. *And did.
> 
> 
> And there are still some who will say, after all this...."it was dying out" -- expecting people to take them seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how Lincoln cultists go on and on about slavery.  Ignoring the fact that their beloved Dishonest Abe had no intention of freeing the slaves.  His dishonest Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves ONLY in the Confederacy, in which he had no authority...keeping slavery legal in border states.
> 
> To his dying day, he wished to deport all blacks.
> 
> He was known to be an fervent racist, even for his time.
> 
> How does the cultist reconcile these facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like the Confederacy really had no reason at all to secede then.....did they.   If Lincoln had no intention of freeing slaves then the Confederates were just plain stupid.....weren't they.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That post clearly reflects your lack of knowledge of the Civil War and yet you claim to know it all.
> 
> You can't fix stupid!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words:  You can't respond because you don't know anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, you have proven an inability to understand the reasons for the War of Northern Aggression.
> 
> The southern man fought because his land was invaded by an enemy bent on destruction.
> 
> Lincoln invaded not to outlaw slavery, but to keep the South from seceding and force them to submit to his rule...as tyrants have done throughout history.
> 
> You now know more about the War of Northern Aggression than you ever did before, but I am betting it won't take.
Click to expand...


<sorry folks, the poverty-stricken in history like the gippers and rigatini's of the world make me have to keep reposting this>

Nevermind some of the basics --  or the Missouri Compromise, the Nullification Crisis, the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the 1852 SC Convention, Bleeding Kansas, the Dred Scott decision, the John Brown Affair, the threatened expansion of slavery in other territories... and every other fucking detail that led up to the Civil War.....

Forgetting* that -- *

*Hostiles had begun in January. Before Lincoln ever stepped into office.*

Before many of the the southern states had even seceded.

A little Timeline for you, from the SC Convention forward:

December 20, 1860: South Carolina convention passes ordinance of secession.
December 24, 1860: *Mississippi Senator Jefferson Davis introduces a "compromise" proposal which would effectively make slavery a national institution.*
December 26, 1860: Major Anderson moves Federal garrison in Charleston, SC, from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter.
January 3, 1861: G*eorgia seizes Fort Pulaski. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
January 4, 1861: *Alabama seizes U.S. arsenal at Mount Vernon. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
January 5, 1861: *Alabama seizes Forts Morgan and Gaines*. * <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
January 6, 1861: *Florida seizes Apalachicola arsenal. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE ARSENAL BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
January 7, 1861: *Florida seizes Fort Marion*. * <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
January 8, 1861: Floridians try to seize Fort Barrancas but are chased off.
January 9, 1861: Mississippi secedes.

*Star of the West fired on in Charleston Harbor <-- FIRING ON A SHIP - A CLEAR ACT OF WAR
THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR.*
January 10, 1861: Florida secedes.

*Louisiana seizes U.S. arsenal at Baton Rouge, as well as Forts Jackson and St. Philip.*
January 11, 1861: Alabama secedes.
*
Louisiana seizes U.S. Marine Hospital.*
January 14, 1861: *Louisiana seizes Fort Pike. * * <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
January 19, 1861: Georgia secedes.
January 26, 1861: Louisiana secedes.
January 28, 1861: Tennessee Resolutions in favor of Crittenden Compromise offered in Congress.
February 1, 1861: Texas secedes.
February 8, 1861: Provisional Constitution of the Confederacy adopted in Montgomery, AL.

*Arkansas seizes U.S. Arsenal at Little Rock.*
February 12, 1861: *Arkansas seizes U.S. ordnance stores at Napoleon.*
February 18, 1861: Jefferson Davis inaugurated as President of the Confederacy.
March 4, 1861: Abraham Lincoln inaugurated as 16th President of the United States.
*March 21, 1861: "Cornerstone speech" delivered by Alexander Stephens. (This is where the Confederate V President lays it out clearly: Slavery is the Cornerstone of the Confederacy.)*

April 12, 1861: * Fort Sumter fired upon by Confederates. 
THE WAR OFFICIALLY BEGINS.*


----------



## paperview

Need more?

*The first shots were fired in January of 1861. *

Buchanan was President and he was trying to resupply Sumter. 




Click to enlarge

The South fired upon the Union Steamship Star of the West

They took another ship and seized it: "The Marion."





Then converted her to a Man of War ship.
*THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." ; SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR. *

Star of the West

Note the date on the Harpers Weekly newspaper:* January, 1861*, linked above.
*THE FIRST OF THE WAR. *

"WE publish herewith pictures of the United States  steam-sloop Brooklyn, and of the steamship Star of the West, and of the steamship Marion, which three vessels figured so prominently in the movements of last week; and on page 37 we give a large plan of  Charleston harbor, showing the forts, etc., together with a view of  Fort Johnson. These pictures will enable our readers to realize what is going on in this most memorable contest of the present age.

On Wednesday morning, January 9, 1861, the

*first shots were fired At daybreak on that morning at the steamship Star of the West, with 250 United States troops on board, attempted to enter the harbor of Charleston for the purpose of communicating with  Fort Sumter*

The people of Charleston had been warned of her coming and of her errand by telegraph. They determined to prevent her reaching  Fort Sumter. *Accordingly, as soon as she came within range, batteries on Morris Island and at Fort Moultrie opened on her*. The first shot was fired across her bows ;

whereupon she increased her speed, and hoisted the  stars and stripes. Other shots were then fired in rapid succession from Morris Island, two or more of which hulled the steamer, and compelled her to put about and go to sea.

The accompanying picture shows the Star of the West as she entered  Charleston harbor; the plan will explain the situation of the forts, and the position of the steamer when she was fired upon. The channel through which she passed runs close by Morris Island for some distance.
Fort Sumter made no demonstration, except at the port-holes, where guns were run out bearing on Morris Island."


They did this before Lincoln even set foot in the office. Before they had even all officially Seceded. * An ACT OF WAR. *
*
Seizing government property of forts and arsenals all across the South is also an Act of War. *


----------



## Discombobulated

paperview said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how Lincoln cultists go on and on about slavery.  Ignoring the fact that their beloved Dishonest Abe had no intention of freeing the slaves.  His dishonest Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves ONLY in the Confederacy, in which he had no authority...keeping slavery legal in border states.
> 
> To his dying day, he wished to deport all blacks.
> 
> He was known to be an fervent racist, even for his time.
> 
> How does the cultist reconcile these facts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like the Confederacy really had no reason at all to secede then.....did they.   If Lincoln had no intention of freeing slaves then the Confederates were just plain stupid.....weren't they.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That post clearly reflects your lack of knowledge of the Civil War and yet you claim to know it all.
> 
> You can't fix stupid!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words:  You can't respond because you don't know anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, you have proven an inability to understand the reasons for the War of Northern Aggression.
> 
> The southern man fought because his land was invaded by an enemy bent on destruction.
> 
> Lincoln invaded not to outlaw slavery, but to keep the South from seceding and force them to submit to his rule...as tyrants have done throughout history.
> 
> You now know more about the War of Northern Aggression than you ever did before, but I am betting it won't take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> <sorry folks, the poverty-stricken in history like the gippers and rigatini's of the world make me have to keep reposting this>
> 
> Nevermind some of the basics --  or the Missouri Compromise, the Nullification Crisis, the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the 1852 SC Convention, Bleeding Kansas, the Dred Scott decision, the John Brown Affair, the threatened expansion of slavery in other territories... and every other fucking detail that led up to the Civil War.....
> 
> Forgetting* that -- *
> 
> *Hostiles had begun in January. Before Lincoln ever stepped into office.*
> 
> Before many of the the southern states had even seceded.
> 
> A little Timeline for you, from the SC Convention forward:
> 
> December 20, 1860: South Carolina convention passes ordinance of secession.
> December 24, 1860: *Mississippi Senator Jefferson Davis introduces a "compromise" proposal which would effectively make slavery a national institution.*
> December 26, 1860: Major Anderson moves Federal garrison in Charleston, SC, from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter.
> January 3, 1861: G*eorgia seizes Fort Pulaski. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 4, 1861: *Alabama seizes U.S. arsenal at Mount Vernon. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 5, 1861: *Alabama seizes Forts Morgan and Gaines*. * <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 6, 1861: *Florida seizes Apalachicola arsenal. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE ARSENAL BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 7, 1861: *Florida seizes Fort Marion*. * <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 8, 1861: Floridians try to seize Fort Barrancas but are chased off.
> January 9, 1861: Mississippi secedes.
> 
> *Star of the West fired on in Charleston Harbor <-- FIRING ON A SHIP - A CLEAR ACT OF WAR
> THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR.*
> January 10, 1861: Florida secedes.
> 
> *Louisiana seizes U.S. arsenal at Baton Rouge, as well as Forts Jackson and St. Philip.*
> January 11, 1861: Alabama secedes.
> *
> Louisiana seizes U.S. Marine Hospital.*
> January 14, 1861: *Louisiana seizes Fort Pike. * * <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 19, 1861: Georgia secedes.
> January 26, 1861: Louisiana secedes.
> January 28, 1861: Tennessee Resolutions in favor of Crittenden Compromise offered in Congress.
> February 1, 1861: Texas secedes.
> February 8, 1861: Provisional Constitution of the Confederacy adopted in Montgomery, AL.
> 
> *Arkansas seizes U.S. Arsenal at Little Rock.*
> February 12, 1861: *Arkansas seizes U.S. ordnance stores at Napoleon.*
> February 18, 1861: Jefferson Davis inaugurated as President of the Confederacy.
> March 4, 1861: Abraham Lincoln inaugurated as 16th President of the United States.
> *March 21, 1861: "Cornerstone speech" delivered by Alexander Stephens. (This is where the Confederate V President lays it out clearly: Slavery is the Cornerstone of the Confederacy.)*
> 
> April 12, 1861: * Fort Sumter fired upon by Confederates.
> THE WAR OFFICIALLY BEGINS.*
Click to expand...


I get a good laugh every time they say War of Northern Aggression.


----------



## James Everett

paperview said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> Slavery was a dying practice. The industrial revolution was beginning....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot doesn't even know the basics of history.
> 
> The Industrial Revolution in America as not "just beginning" in 1860, and with
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> To all you Yankee's Your deadline is 9pm tonight. You are running out of time!
> *WE STILL AWAIT YOUR POSTING OF THE
> participating States of the CSA can gather and discuss what is going on with their respective States and what is and is not working to educate the general public on our Movement for self Government
> Nov 8
> 
> 
> Article within YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, or Amendment thereof that states that secession is unlawful or illegal. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And what are you going to do then?
> 
> Break loose from the insane asylum you're in and screech cross the underpass onto the highway
> in your johnny reb grays holding the stars and bars in one hand,  pounding out Dixie on your bugle in the other and yelping how
> 
> 
> *the time has come !1!! the south will rise again!!!!*
> 
> *You Yankees have pushed us kinfed-retts long enough!!!!!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <Here's a lil tip: wear a double set of Depends.*>*
Click to expand...

More childishness from the lil boy Paperview stomping his foot because he's made a fool of himself, so why not continue? I gave you Yankees one week to cite the 
*Article within YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, or Amendment thereof that states that secession is unlawful or illegal. That is plenty of time for even the pseudo intellectual such as your lil group. You have been unable therefore at that point you have clearly lost this debate. Nothing other than the legality of secession is relevant. You can scream slavery all you like but that is of no consequence comming from those who support the government that was responsible for the extermination of the Native American Indian. You lose on both the moral and legal issue as the hypocrites that you are.*


----------



## James Everett

paperview said:


> Need more?
> 
> *The first shots were fired in January of 1861. *
> 
> Buchanan was President and he was trying to resupply Sumter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to enlarge
> 
> The South fired upon the Union Steamship Star of the West
> 
> They took another ship and seized it: "The Marion."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then converted her to a Man of War ship.
> *THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." ; SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR. *
> 
> Star of the West
> 
> Note the date on the Harpers Weekly newspaper:* January, 1861*, linked above.
> *THE FIRST OF THE WAR. *
> 
> "WE publish herewith pictures of the United States  steam-sloop Brooklyn, and of the steamship Star of the West, and of the steamship Marion, which three vessels figured so prominently in the movements of last week; and on page 37 we give a large plan of  Charleston harbor, showing the forts, etc., together with a view of  Fort Johnson. These pictures will enable our readers to realize what is going on in this most memorable contest of the present age.
> 
> On Wednesday morning, January 9, 1861, the
> 
> *first shots were fired At daybreak on that morning at the steamship Star of the West, with 250 United States troops on board, attempted to enter the harbor of Charleston for the purpose of communicating with  Fort Sumter*
> 
> The people of Charleston had been warned of her coming and of her errand by telegraph. They determined to prevent her reaching  Fort Sumter. *Accordingly, as soon as she came within range, batteries on Morris Island and at Fort Moultrie opened on her*. The first shot was fired across her bows ;
> 
> whereupon she increased her speed, and hoisted the  stars and stripes. Other shots were then fired in rapid succession from Morris Island, two or more of which hulled the steamer, and compelled her to put about and go to sea.
> 
> The accompanying picture shows the Star of the West as she entered  Charleston harbor; the plan will explain the situation of the forts, and the position of the steamer when she was fired upon. The channel through which she passed runs close by Morris Island for some distance.
> Fort Sumter made no demonstration, except at the port-holes, where guns were run out bearing on Morris Island."
> 
> 
> They did this before Lincoln even set foot in the office. Before they had even all officially Seceded. * An ACT OF WAR. *
> *
> Seizing government property of forts and arsenals all across the South is also an Act of War. *


Not one bit of this is relevant as South Carolina had already LEGALY seceded . As requested, cite the law that states that secession is an illegal act!


----------



## Discombobulated

James Everett said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Need more?
> 
> *The first shots were fired in January of 1861. *
> 
> Buchanan was President and he was trying to resupply Sumter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to enlarge
> 
> The South fired upon the Union Steamship Star of the West
> 
> They took another ship and seized it: "The Marion."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then converted her to a Man of War ship.
> *THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." ; SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR. *
> 
> Star of the West
> 
> Note the date on the Harpers Weekly newspaper:* January, 1861*, linked above.
> *THE FIRST OF THE WAR. *
> 
> "WE publish herewith pictures of the United States  steam-sloop Brooklyn, and of the steamship Star of the West, and of the steamship Marion, which three vessels figured so prominently in the movements of last week; and on page 37 we give a large plan of  Charleston harbor, showing the forts, etc., together with a view of  Fort Johnson. These pictures will enable our readers to realize what is going on in this most memorable contest of the present age.
> 
> On Wednesday morning, January 9, 1861, the
> 
> *first shots were fired At daybreak on that morning at the steamship Star of the West, with 250 United States troops on board, attempted to enter the harbor of Charleston for the purpose of communicating with  Fort Sumter*
> 
> The people of Charleston had been warned of her coming and of her errand by telegraph. They determined to prevent her reaching  Fort Sumter. *Accordingly, as soon as she came within range, batteries on Morris Island and at Fort Moultrie opened on her*. The first shot was fired across her bows ;
> 
> whereupon she increased her speed, and hoisted the  stars and stripes. Other shots were then fired in rapid succession from Morris Island, two or more of which hulled the steamer, and compelled her to put about and go to sea.
> 
> The accompanying picture shows the Star of the West as she entered  Charleston harbor; the plan will explain the situation of the forts, and the position of the steamer when she was fired upon. The channel through which she passed runs close by Morris Island for some distance.
> Fort Sumter made no demonstration, except at the port-holes, where guns were run out bearing on Morris Island."
> 
> 
> They did this before Lincoln even set foot in the office. Before they had even all officially Seceded. * An ACT OF WAR. *
> *
> Seizing government property of forts and arsenals all across the South is also an Act of War. *
> 
> 
> 
> Not one bit of this is relevant as South Carolina had already LEGALY seceded . As requested, cite the law that states that secession is an illegal act!
Click to expand...


You have failed utterly to make your case.


----------



## James Everett

And


Discombobulated said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Need more?
> 
> *The first shots were fired in January of 1861. *
> 
> Buchanan was President and he was trying to resupply Sumter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to enlarge
> 
> The South fired upon the Union Steamship Star of the West
> 
> They took another ship and seized it: "The Marion."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then converted her to a Man of War ship.
> *THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." ; SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR. *
> 
> Star of the West
> 
> Note the date on the Harpers Weekly newspaper:* January, 1861*, linked above.
> *THE FIRST OF THE WAR. *
> 
> "WE publish herewith pictures of the United States  steam-sloop Brooklyn, and of the steamship Star of the West, and of the steamship Marion, which three vessels figured so prominently in the movements of last week; and on page 37 we give a large plan of  Charleston harbor, showing the forts, etc., together with a view of  Fort Johnson. These pictures will enable our readers to realize what is going on in this most memorable contest of the present age.
> 
> On Wednesday morning, January 9, 1861, the
> 
> *first shots were fired At daybreak on that morning at the steamship Star of the West, with 250 United States troops on board, attempted to enter the harbor of Charleston for the purpose of communicating with  Fort Sumter*
> 
> The people of Charleston had been warned of her coming and of her errand by telegraph. They determined to prevent her reaching  Fort Sumter. *Accordingly, as soon as she came within range, batteries on Morris Island and at Fort Moultrie opened on her*. The first shot was fired across her bows ;
> 
> whereupon she increased her speed, and hoisted the  stars and stripes. Other shots were then fired in rapid succession from Morris Island, two or more of which hulled the steamer, and compelled her to put about and go to sea.
> 
> The accompanying picture shows the Star of the West as she entered  Charleston harbor; the plan will explain the situation of the forts, and the position of the steamer when she was fired upon. The channel through which she passed runs close by Morris Island for some distance.
> Fort Sumter made no demonstration, except at the port-holes, where guns were run out bearing on Morris Island."
> 
> 
> They did this before Lincoln even set foot in the office. Before they had even all officially Seceded. * An ACT OF WAR. *
> *
> Seizing government property of forts and arsenals all across the South is also an Act of War. *
> 
> 
> 
> Not one bit of this is relevant as South Carolina had already LEGALY seceded . As requested, cite the law that states that secession is an illegal act!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have failed utterly to make your case.
Click to expand...

 in what Soverign State does Charlston harbor exist? Hint it ain't the good ole U.s. And the fact that that ship was invading the Soverign State of South Carolina's  waters was an act of war.


----------



## Discombobulated

James Everett said:


> And
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Need more?
> 
> *The first shots were fired in January of 1861. *
> 
> Buchanan was President and he was trying to resupply Sumter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to enlarge
> 
> The South fired upon the Union Steamship Star of the West
> 
> They took another ship and seized it: "The Marion."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then converted her to a Man of War ship.
> *THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." ; SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR. *
> 
> Star of the West
> 
> Note the date on the Harpers Weekly newspaper:* January, 1861*, linked above.
> *THE FIRST OF THE WAR. *
> 
> "WE publish herewith pictures of the United States  steam-sloop Brooklyn, and of the steamship Star of the West, and of the steamship Marion, which three vessels figured so prominently in the movements of last week; and on page 37 we give a large plan of  Charleston harbor, showing the forts, etc., together with a view of  Fort Johnson. These pictures will enable our readers to realize what is going on in this most memorable contest of the present age.
> 
> On Wednesday morning, January 9, 1861, the
> 
> *first shots were fired At daybreak on that morning at the steamship Star of the West, with 250 United States troops on board, attempted to enter the harbor of Charleston for the purpose of communicating with  Fort Sumter*
> 
> The people of Charleston had been warned of her coming and of her errand by telegraph. They determined to prevent her reaching  Fort Sumter. *Accordingly, as soon as she came within range, batteries on Morris Island and at Fort Moultrie opened on her*. The first shot was fired across her bows ;
> 
> whereupon she increased her speed, and hoisted the  stars and stripes. Other shots were then fired in rapid succession from Morris Island, two or more of which hulled the steamer, and compelled her to put about and go to sea.
> 
> The accompanying picture shows the Star of the West as she entered  Charleston harbor; the plan will explain the situation of the forts, and the position of the steamer when she was fired upon. The channel through which she passed runs close by Morris Island for some distance.
> Fort Sumter made no demonstration, except at the port-holes, where guns were run out bearing on Morris Island."
> 
> 
> They did this before Lincoln even set foot in the office. Before they had even all officially Seceded. * An ACT OF WAR. *
> *
> Seizing government property of forts and arsenals all across the South is also an Act of War. *
> 
> 
> 
> Not one bit of this is relevant as South Carolina had already LEGALY seceded . As requested, cite the law that states that secession is an illegal act!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have failed utterly to make your case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in what Soverign State does Charlston harbor exist? Hint it ain't the good ole U.s. And the fact that that ship was invading the Soverign State of South Carolina's  waters was an act of war.
Click to expand...


Gibberish, absolute nonsense, you might just as well be speaking in tongues.


----------



## paperview

Discombobulated said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> And
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Need more?
> 
> *The first shots were fired in January of 1861. *
> 
> Buchanan was President and he was trying to resupply Sumter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to enlarge
> 
> The South fired upon the Union Steamship Star of the West
> 
> They took another ship and seized it: "The Marion."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then converted her to a Man of War ship.
> *THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." ; SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR. *
> 
> Star of the West
> 
> Note the date on the Harpers Weekly newspaper:* January, 1861*, linked above.
> *THE FIRST OF THE WAR. *
> 
> "WE publish herewith pictures of the United States  steam-sloop Brooklyn, and of the steamship Star of the West, and of the steamship Marion, which three vessels figured so prominently in the movements of last week; and on page 37 we give a large plan of  Charleston harbor, showing the forts, etc., together with a view of  Fort Johnson. These pictures will enable our readers to realize what is going on in this most memorable contest of the present age.
> 
> On Wednesday morning, January 9, 1861, the
> 
> *first shots were fired At daybreak on that morning at the steamship Star of the West, with 250 United States troops on board, attempted to enter the harbor of Charleston for the purpose of communicating with  Fort Sumter*
> 
> The people of Charleston had been warned of her coming and of her errand by telegraph. They determined to prevent her reaching  Fort Sumter. *Accordingly, as soon as she came within range, batteries on Morris Island and at Fort Moultrie opened on her*. The first shot was fired across her bows ;
> 
> whereupon she increased her speed, and hoisted the  stars and stripes. Other shots were then fired in rapid succession from Morris Island, two or more of which hulled the steamer, and compelled her to put about and go to sea.
> 
> The accompanying picture shows the Star of the West as she entered  Charleston harbor; the plan will explain the situation of the forts, and the position of the steamer when she was fired upon. The channel through which she passed runs close by Morris Island for some distance.
> Fort Sumter made no demonstration, except at the port-holes, where guns were run out bearing on Morris Island."
> 
> 
> They did this before Lincoln even set foot in the office. Before they had even all officially Seceded. * An ACT OF WAR. *
> *
> Seizing government property of forts and arsenals all across the South is also an Act of War. *
> 
> 
> 
> Not one bit of this is relevant as South Carolina had already LEGALY seceded . As requested, cite the law that states that secession is an illegal act!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have failed utterly to make your case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in what Soverign State does Charlston harbor exist? Hint it ain't the good ole U.s. And the fact that that ship was invading the Soverign State of South Carolina's  waters was an act of war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gibberish, absolute nonsense, you might just as well be speaking in tongues.
Click to expand...


Someone needs to tell the little Depends-wearing mental patient from the confederacy South Carolina ceded all rights to Fort Sumter in 1836.  Free and clear.

Fact.


----------



## James Everett

paperview said:


> Need more?
> 
> *The first shots were fired in January of 1861. *
> 
> Buchanan was President and he was trying to resupply Sumter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to enlarge
> 
> The South fired upon the Union Steamship Star of the West
> 
> They took another ship and seized it: "The Marion."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then converted her to a Man of War ship.
> *THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." ; SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR. *
> 
> Star of the West
> 
> Note the date on the Harpers Weekly newspaper:* January, 1861*, linked above.
> *THE FIRST OF THE WAR. *
> 
> "WE publish herewith pictures of the United States  steam-sloop Brooklyn, and of the steamship Star of the West, and of the steamship Marion, which three vessels figured so prominently in the movements of last week; and on page 37 we give a large plan of  Charleston harbor, showing the forts, etc., together with a view of  Fort Johnson. These pictures will enable our readers to realize what is going on in this most memorable contest of the present age.
> 
> On Wednesday morning, January 9, 1861, the
> 
> *first shots were fired At daybreak on that morning at the steamship Star of the West, with 250 United States troops on board, attempted to enter the harbor of Charleston for the purpose of communicating with  Fort Sumter*
> 
> The people of Charleston had been warned of her coming and of her errand by telegraph. They determined to prevent her reaching  Fort Sumter. *Accordingly, as soon as she came within range, batteries on Morris Island and at Fort Moultrie opened on her*. The first shot was fired across her bows ;
> 
> whereupon she increased her speed, and hoisted the  stars and stripes. Other shots were then fired in rapid succession from Morris Island, two or more of which hulled the steamer, and compelled her to put about and go to sea.
> 
> The accompanying picture shows the Star of the West as she entered  Charleston harbor; the plan will explain the situation of the forts, and the position of the steamer when she was fired upon. The channel through which she passed runs close by Morris Island for some distance.
> Fort Sumter made no demonstration, except at the port-holes, where guns were run out bearing on Morris Island."
> 
> 
> They did this before Lincoln even set foot in the office. Before they had even all officially Seceded. * An ACT OF WAR. *
> *
> Seizing government property of forts and arsenals all across the South is also an Act of War. *


Paperview, you asked.... "Need more?"
Yes, in fact we need you to post the answer to the only relevant issue. Please cite the law that states that secession is an illegal act. Everything else is irrelevant because even if all that you post is an act of war, then the Southern Confederate States were no longer part of the U.S. Hence the U.S. Cannot constitutionally force States to become a member State in the union. Hence we are indeed illegally occupied by the U.S. Which is called tyranny just as it was under the former Soviet Union. Please cite that law!!!!!!


----------



## James Everett

An


paperview said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> And
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Need more?
> 
> *The first shots were fired in January of 1861. *
> 
> Buchanan was President and he was trying to resupply Sumter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to enlarge
> 
> The South fired upon the Union Steamship Star of the West
> 
> They took another ship and seized it: "The Marion."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then converted her to a Man of War ship.
> *THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." ; SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR. *
> 
> Star of the West
> 
> Note the date on the Harpers Weekly newspaper:* January, 1861*, linked above.
> *THE FIRST OF THE WAR. *
> 
> "WE publish herewith pictures of the United States  steam-sloop Brooklyn, and of the steamship Star of the West, and of the steamship Marion, which three vessels figured so prominently in the movements of last week; and on page 37 we give a large plan of  Charleston harbor, showing the forts, etc., together with a view of  Fort Johnson. These pictures will enable our readers to realize what is going on in this most memorable contest of the present age.
> 
> On Wednesday morning, January 9, 1861, the
> 
> *first shots were fired At daybreak on that morning at the steamship Star of the West, with 250 United States troops on board, attempted to enter the harbor of Charleston for the purpose of communicating with  Fort Sumter*
> 
> The people of Charleston had been warned of her coming and of her errand by telegraph. They determined to prevent her reaching  Fort Sumter. *Accordingly, as soon as she came within range, batteries on Morris Island and at Fort Moultrie opened on her*. The first shot was fired across her bows ;
> 
> whereupon she increased her speed, and hoisted the  stars and stripes. Other shots were then fired in rapid succession from Morris Island, two or more of which hulled the steamer, and compelled her to put about and go to sea.
> 
> The accompanying picture shows the Star of the West as she entered  Charleston harbor; the plan will explain the situation of the forts, and the position of the steamer when she was fired upon. The channel through which she passed runs close by Morris Island for some distance.
> Fort Sumter made no demonstration, except at the port-holes, where guns were run out bearing on Morris Island."
> 
> 
> They did this before Lincoln even set foot in the office. Before they had even all officially Seceded. * An ACT OF WAR. *
> *
> Seizing government property of forts and arsenals all across the South is also an Act of War. *
> 
> 
> 
> Not one bit of this is relevant as South Carolina had already LEGALY seceded . As requested, cite the law that states that secession is an illegal act!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have failed utterly to make your case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in what Soverign State does Charlston harbor exist? Hint it ain't the good ole U.s. And the fact that that ship was invading the Soverign State of South Carolina's  waters was an act of war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gibberish, absolute nonsense, you might just as well be speaking in tongues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone needs to tell the little Depends-wearing mental patient from the confederacy South Carolina ceded all rights to Fort Sumter in 1836.  Free and clear.
> 
> Fact.
Click to expand...

d someone needs to tell this ignorant Yankee that South Carolina did not  give up the waters that surround the fort, hence any attempt to enter South Carolina waters to supply the fort constitutes an invasion of South Carolina sovereignty and is an act of war.


----------



## paperview

This may also be of interest to the 'lil rebel in eggzile: 

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution : 
"Congress shall have the Power …. To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings."


----------



## James Everett

paperview said:


> This may also be of interest to the 'lil rebel in eggzile:
> 
> Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution :
> "Congress shall have the Power …. To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings."


And yet while the U.S. May own that fort, they do not own the adjacent land or waters in which to gain access to supply said forts and arsenals hence they are rendered useless, and to invade another Soverign states soil or waters in order to do so constitutes an act of war.


----------



## paperview

The South committed an Act of War with the firing on and seizing of Federal property.

And Buchanan was a pansy ass to not fulfill his duties when the South took claim to property that WAS NOT THEIRS.

But for those who might be interested in the historical tidbit (not for James, he's a Lost Cause troll with a serious mental illness...)

Here you go:
=================================================
*South Carolina ceded all rights and claim to Sumter in 1836.* Yes, 1836.
==================================================

*Committee on Federal Relations
In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836*

"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

"*Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory*, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

"Also resolved: *That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.*

"Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:

"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
"In Senate, December 21st, 1836

"Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:

Jacob Warly, C. S.

======================================
And even if she hadn't, a state cannot just claim Federal property as it's own. Kentucky can't just decide to claim Fort Knox if it decided it wanted to secede. Not the way it works.

But never matter no mind. South Carolina DID cede the rights to Fort Sumter and  adjacent territory.  It's right there in black and black and white.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Poor lil white supremacists who can't get over, still -- they lost the war.


----------



## James Everett

A


paperview said:


> The South committed an Act of War with the firing on and seizing of Federal property.
> 
> And Buchanan was a pansy ass to not fulfill his duties when the South took claim to property that WAS NOT THEIRS.
> 
> But for those who might be interested in the historical tidbit (not for James, he's a Lost Cause troll with a serious mental illness...)
> 
> Here you go:
> =================================================
> *South Carolina ceded all rights and claim to Sumter in 1836.* Yes, 1836.
> ==================================================
> 
> *Committee on Federal Relations
> In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836*
> 
> "The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:
> 
> "*Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory*, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.
> 
> "Also resolved: *That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.*
> 
> "Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.
> 
> "Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:
> 
> "T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
> "In Senate, December 21st, 1836
> 
> "Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:
> 
> Jacob Warly, C. S.
> 
> ======================================
> And even if she hadn't, a state cannot just claim Federal property as it's own. Kentucky can't just decide to claim Fort Knox if it decided it wanted to secede. Not the way it works.
> 
> But never matter no mind. South Carolina DID cede the rights to Fort Sumter and  adjacent territory.  It's right there in black and black and white.
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Poor lil white supremacists who can't get over, still -- they lost the war.


gain, the U.s was not granted the right to invade South Carolina waters to supply the fort. That was an act of war when the U.s entered SC waters.


----------



## Discombobulated

James Everett said:


> A
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South committed an Act of War with the firing on and seizing of Federal property.
> 
> And Buchanan was a pansy ass to not fulfill his duties when the South took claim to property that WAS NOT THEIRS.
> 
> But for those who might be interested in the historical tidbit (not for James, he's a Lost Cause troll with a serious mental illness...)
> 
> Here you go:
> =================================================
> *South Carolina ceded all rights and claim to Sumter in 1836.* Yes, 1836.
> ==================================================
> 
> *Committee on Federal Relations
> In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836*
> 
> "The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:
> 
> "*Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory*, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.
> 
> "Also resolved: *That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.*
> 
> "Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.
> 
> "Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:
> 
> "T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
> "In Senate, December 21st, 1836
> 
> "Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:
> 
> Jacob Warly, C. S.
> 
> ======================================
> And even if she hadn't, a state cannot just claim Federal property as it's own. Kentucky can't just decide to claim Fort Knox if it decided it wanted to secede. Not the way it works.
> 
> But never matter no mind. South Carolina DID cede the rights to Fort Sumter and  adjacent territory.  It's right there in black and black and white.
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Poor lil white supremacists who can't get over, still -- they lost the war.
> 
> 
> 
> gain, the U.s was not granted the right to invade South Carolina waters to supply the fort. That was an act of war when the U.s entered SC waters.
Click to expand...


----------



## James Everett

paperview said:


> The South committed an Act of War with the firing on and seizing of Federal property.
> 
> And Buchanan was a pansy ass to not fulfill his duties when the South took claim to property that WAS NOT THEIRS.
> 
> But for those who might be interested in the historical tidbit (not for James, he's a Lost Cause troll with a serious mental illness...)
> 
> Here you go:
> =================================================
> *South Carolina ceded all rights and claim to Sumter in 1836.* Yes, 1836.
> ==================================================
> 
> *Committee on Federal Relations
> In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836*
> 
> "The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:
> 
> "*Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory*, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.
> 
> "Also resolved: *That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.*
> 
> "Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.
> 
> "Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:
> 
> "T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
> "In Senate, December 21st, 1836
> 
> "Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:
> 
> Jacob Warly, C. S.
> 
> ======================================
> And even if she hadn't, a state cannot just claim Federal property as it's own. Kentucky can't just decide to claim Fort Knox if it decided it wanted to secede. Not the way it works.
> 
> But never matter no mind. South Carolina DID cede the rights to Fort Sumter and  adjacent territory.  It's right there in black and black and white.
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Poor lil white supremacists who can't get over, still -- they lost the war.


Well, Paperview, where did you go? Got your ass handed to you again didn't you? While the land was ceded to the U.S. It became useless to the U.S. As a fort when South Carolina legally seceded. There was no purpose for the U.S. To maintain the fort other than a provocation of war. The U.S. Lost access to it upon SC secession. The only way to supply or maintain any of those forts was through the consent of the States wherein they were surrounded. To do so required consent, and without consent any. Attempt to supply troops would mean an invasion through the sovereign States land or waters wherein the Fort rested? Hence an act of war on the part of the U.S. As I have stated, you must return to the first cause. Everything rests on the legality of secession. Cite the law that makes secession an illegal or unlawful act. And stop acting as a child with you vulgar and petty insults, they don't help your case and show you for the childish kilobytes or girl that you are.


----------



## Discombobulated

James Everett said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South committed an Act of War with the firing on and seizing of Federal property.
> 
> And Buchanan was a pansy ass to not fulfill his duties when the South took claim to property that WAS NOT THEIRS.
> 
> But for those who might be interested in the historical tidbit (not for James, he's a Lost Cause troll with a serious mental illness...)
> 
> Here you go:
> =================================================
> *South Carolina ceded all rights and claim to Sumter in 1836.* Yes, 1836.
> ==================================================
> 
> *Committee on Federal Relations
> In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836*
> 
> "The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:
> 
> "*Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory*, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.
> 
> "Also resolved: *That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.*
> 
> "Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.
> 
> "Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:
> 
> "T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
> "In Senate, December 21st, 1836
> 
> "Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:
> 
> Jacob Warly, C. S.
> 
> ======================================
> And even if she hadn't, a state cannot just claim Federal property as it's own. Kentucky can't just decide to claim Fort Knox if it decided it wanted to secede. Not the way it works.
> 
> But never matter no mind. South Carolina DID cede the rights to Fort Sumter and  adjacent territory.  It's right there in black and black and white.
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Poor lil white supremacists who can't get over, still -- they lost the war.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Paperview, where did you go? Got your ass handed to you again didn't you? While the land was ceded to the U.S. It became useless to the U.S. As a fort when South Carolina legally seceded. There was no purpose for the U.S. To maintain the fort other than a provocation of war. The U.S. Lost access to it upon SC secession. The only way to supply or maintain any of those forts was through the consent of the States wherein they were surrounded. To do so required consent, and without consent any. Attempt to supply troops would mean an invasion through the sovereign States land or waters wherein the Fort rested? Hence an act of war on the part of the U.S. As I have stated, you must return to the first cause. Everything rests on the legality of secession. Cite the law that makes secession an illegal or unlawful act. And stop acting as a child with you vulgar and petty insults, they don't help your case and show you for the childish kilobytes or girl that you are.
Click to expand...


----------



## Discombobulated

Maybe if he repeats it again it will make more sense.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James Everett said:


> A
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South seceded months before Lincoln was inaugurated.
> 
> The South was not coming back peacefully.
> 
> The South did not respect constitutional, electoral process.
> 
> The South fired on Old Glory.
> 
> Yep, Lincoln was at fault.
> 
> 
> 
> gain Jake ole boy please explain the cinstitutional process that the South did not follow.
Click to expand...


The did not accept the constitutional, electoral process that made Lincoln president.

That refusal to accept constitutional process and out right violent insurrection led to the law execution of the Old South.  The CSA was a murder regime and was dealt with lawfully; it was killed.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James Everett said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> Slavery was a dying practice. The industrial revolution was beginning....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot doesn't even know the basics of history.
> 
> The Industrial Revolution in America as not "just beginning" in 1860, and with
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> To all you Yankee's Your deadline is 9pm tonight. You are running out of time!
> *WE STILL AWAIT YOUR POSTING OF THE
> participating States of the CSA can gather and discuss what is going on with their respective States and what is and is not working to educate the general public on our Movement for self Government
> Nov 8
> 
> 
> Article within YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, or Amendment thereof that states that secession is unlawful or illegal. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And what are you going to do then?
> 
> Break loose from the insane asylum you're in and screech cross the underpass onto the highway
> in your johnny reb grays holding the stars and bars in one hand,  pounding out Dixie on your bugle in the other and yelping how
> 
> 
> *the time has come !1!! the south will rise again!!!!*
> 
> *You Yankees have pushed us kinfed-retts long enough!!!!!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <Here's a lil tip: wear a double set of Depends.*>*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More childishness from the lil boy Paperview stomping his foot because he's made a fool of himself, so why not continue? I gave you Yankees one week to cite the
> *Article within YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, or Amendment thereof that states that secession is unlawful or illegal. That is plenty of time for even the pseudo intellectual such as your lil group. You have been unable therefore at that point you have clearly lost this debate. Nothing other than the legality of secession is relevant. You can scream slavery all you like but that is of no consequence comming from those who support the government that was responsible for the extermination of the Native American Indian. You lose on both the moral and legal issue as the hypocrites that you are.*
Click to expand...


One, like the South,  you have no authority to require anyone to do anything because you are surely not an expert or judge on these matters.

Two, you have not given any convincing constitutional reason permitting the South to secede.

You precede and fail from confirmation bias.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James Everett said:


> A
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South committed an Act of War with the firing on and seizing of Federal property.
> 
> And Buchanan was a pansy ass to not fulfill his duties when the South took claim to property that WAS NOT THEIRS.
> 
> But for those who might be interested in the historical tidbit (not for James, he's a Lost Cause troll with a serious mental illness...)
> 
> Here you go:
> =================================================
> *South Carolina ceded all rights and claim to Sumter in 1836.* Yes, 1836.
> ==================================================
> 
> *Committee on Federal Relations
> In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836*
> 
> "The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:
> 
> "*Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory*, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.
> 
> "Also resolved: *That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.*
> 
> "Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.
> 
> "Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:
> 
> "T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
> "In Senate, December 21st, 1836
> 
> "Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:
> 
> Jacob Warly, C. S.
> 
> ======================================
> And even if she hadn't, a state cannot just claim Federal property as it's own. Kentucky can't just decide to claim Fort Knox if it decided it wanted to secede. Not the way it works.
> 
> But never matter no mind. South Carolina DID cede the rights to Fort Sumter and  adjacent territory.  It's right there in black and black and white.
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Poor lil white supremacists who can't get over, still -- they lost the war.
> 
> 
> 
> gain, the U.s was not granted the right to invade South Carolina waters to supply the fort. That was an act of war when the U.s entered SC waters.
Click to expand...


An inferior government may not dictate to a superior government.  Your argument fails morally, philosophically, and legally.

The act of war occurred when the CSA attacked federal forces.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> A
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South committed an Act of War with the firing on and seizing of Federal property.
> 
> And Buchanan was a pansy ass to not fulfill his duties when the South took claim to property that WAS NOT THEIRS.
> 
> But for those who might be interested in the historical tidbit (not for James, he's a Lost Cause troll with a serious mental illness...)
> 
> Here you go:
> =================================================
> *South Carolina ceded all rights and claim to Sumter in 1836.* Yes, 1836.
> ==================================================
> 
> *Committee on Federal Relations
> In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836*
> 
> "The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:
> 
> "*Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory*, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.
> 
> "Also resolved: *That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.*
> 
> "Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.
> 
> "Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:
> 
> "T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
> "In Senate, December 21st, 1836
> 
> "Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:
> 
> Jacob Warly, C. S.
> 
> ======================================
> And even if she hadn't, a state cannot just claim Federal property as it's own. Kentucky can't just decide to claim Fort Knox if it decided it wanted to secede. Not the way it works.
> 
> But never matter no mind. South Carolina DID cede the rights to Fort Sumter and  adjacent territory.  It's right there in black and black and white.
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Poor lil white supremacists who can't get over, still -- they lost the war.
> 
> 
> 
> gain, the U.s was not granted the right to invade South Carolina waters to supply the fort. That was an act of war when the U.s entered SC waters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An inferior government may not dictate to a superior government.  Your argument fails morally, philosophically, and legally.
> 
> The act of war occurred when the CSA attacked federal forces.
Click to expand...




JakeStarkey said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> A
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South committed an Act of War with the firing on and seizing of Federal property.
> 
> And Buchanan was a pansy ass to not fulfill his duties when the South took claim to property that WAS NOT THEIRS.
> 
> But for those who might be interested in the historical tidbit (not for James, he's a Lost Cause troll with a serious mental illness...)
> 
> Here you go:
> =================================================
> *South Carolina ceded all rights and claim to Sumter in 1836.* Yes, 1836.
> ==================================================
> 
> *Committee on Federal Relations
> In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836*
> 
> "The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:
> 
> "*Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory*, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.
> 
> "Also resolved: *That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.*
> 
> "Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.
> 
> "Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:
> 
> "T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
> "In Senate, December 21st, 1836
> 
> "Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:
> 
> Jacob Warly, C. S.
> 
> ======================================
> And even if she hadn't, a state cannot just claim Federal property as it's own. Kentucky can't just decide to claim Fort Knox if it decided it wanted to secede. Not the way it works.
> 
> But never matter no mind. South Carolina DID cede the rights to Fort Sumter and  adjacent territory.  It's right there in black and black and white.
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Poor lil white supremacists who can't get over, still -- they lost the war.
> 
> 
> 
> gain, the U.s was not granted the right to invade South Carolina waters to supply the fort. That was an act of war when the U.s entered SC waters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An inferior government may not dictate to a superior government.  Your argument fails morally, philosophically, and legally.
> 
> The act of war occurred when the CSA attacked federal forces.
Click to expand...

jake, I am so proud if you!!! You are learning. You are 100%correct inferiors do not dictate to superiors! The States dictated what few powers that the central body would hold. The States via their delegates established/dictated what powers the central body would hold. Therefore the State governments are the superiors.  Good gor you, your learning which is more than I can say for Paperview.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> Slavery was a dying practice. The industrial revolution was beginning....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot doesn't even know the basics of history.
> 
> The Industrial Revolution in America as not "just beginning" in 1860, and with
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> To all you Yankee's Your deadline is 9pm tonight. You are running out of time!
> *WE STILL AWAIT YOUR POSTING OF THE
> participating States of the CSA can gather and discuss what is going on with their respective States and what is and is not working to educate the general public on our Movement for self Government
> Nov 8
> 
> 
> Article within YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, or Amendment thereof that states that secession is unlawful or illegal. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And what are you going to do then?
> 
> Break loose from the insane asylum you're in and screech cross the underpass onto the highway
> in your johnny reb grays holding the stars and bars in one hand,  pounding out Dixie on your bugle in the other and yelping how
> 
> 
> *the time has come !1!! the south will rise again!!!!*
> 
> *You Yankees have pushed us kinfed-retts long enough!!!!!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <Here's a lil tip: wear a double set of Depends.*>*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More childishness from the lil boy Paperview stomping his foot because he's made a fool of himself, so why not continue? I gave you Yankees one week to cite the
> *Article within YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, or Amendment thereof that states that secession is unlawful or illegal. That is plenty of time for even the pseudo intellectual such as your lil group. You have been unable therefore at that point you have clearly lost this debate. Nothing other than the legality of secession is relevant. You can scream slavery all you like but that is of no consequence comming from those who support the government that was responsible for the extermination of the Native American Indian. You lose on both the moral and legal issue as the hypocrites that you are.*
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One, like the South,  you have no authority to require anyone to do anything because you are surely not an expert or judge on these matters.
> 
> Two, you have not given any convincing constitutional reason permitting the South to secede.
> 
> You precede and fail from confirmation bias.
Click to expand...

Oh, jake did you miss it? I gave you the tenth amendment which clearly gives "the south the authority to leave.


----------



## Discombobulated

James Everett said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> A
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South committed an Act of War with the firing on and seizing of Federal property.
> 
> And Buchanan was a pansy ass to not fulfill his duties when the South took claim to property that WAS NOT THEIRS.
> 
> But for those who might be interested in the historical tidbit (not for James, he's a Lost Cause troll with a serious mental illness...)
> 
> Here you go:
> =================================================
> *South Carolina ceded all rights and claim to Sumter in 1836.* Yes, 1836.
> ==================================================
> 
> *Committee on Federal Relations
> In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836*
> 
> "The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:
> 
> "*Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory*, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.
> 
> "Also resolved: *That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.*
> 
> "Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.
> 
> "Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:
> 
> "T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
> "In Senate, December 21st, 1836
> 
> "Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:
> 
> Jacob Warly, C. S.
> 
> ======================================
> And even if she hadn't, a state cannot just claim Federal property as it's own. Kentucky can't just decide to claim Fort Knox if it decided it wanted to secede. Not the way it works.
> 
> But never matter no mind. South Carolina DID cede the rights to Fort Sumter and  adjacent territory.  It's right there in black and black and white.
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Poor lil white supremacists who can't get over, still -- they lost the war.
> 
> 
> 
> gain, the U.s was not granted the right to invade South Carolina waters to supply the fort. That was an act of war when the U.s entered SC waters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An inferior government may not dictate to a superior government.  Your argument fails morally, philosophically, and legally.
> 
> The act of war occurred when the CSA attacked federal forces.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> A
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South committed an Act of War with the firing on and seizing of Federal property.
> 
> And Buchanan was a pansy ass to not fulfill his duties when the South took claim to property that WAS NOT THEIRS.
> 
> But for those who might be interested in the historical tidbit (not for James, he's a Lost Cause troll with a serious mental illness...)
> 
> Here you go:
> =================================================
> *South Carolina ceded all rights and claim to Sumter in 1836.* Yes, 1836.
> ==================================================
> 
> *Committee on Federal Relations
> In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836*
> 
> "The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:
> 
> "*Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory*, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.
> 
> "Also resolved: *That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.*
> 
> "Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.
> 
> "Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:
> 
> "T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
> "In Senate, December 21st, 1836
> 
> "Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:
> 
> Jacob Warly, C. S.
> 
> ======================================
> And even if she hadn't, a state cannot just claim Federal property as it's own. Kentucky can't just decide to claim Fort Knox if it decided it wanted to secede. Not the way it works.
> 
> But never matter no mind. South Carolina DID cede the rights to Fort Sumter and  adjacent territory.  It's right there in black and black and white.
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Poor lil white supremacists who can't get over, still -- they lost the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> gain, the U.s was not granted the right to invade South Carolina waters to supply the fort. That was an act of war when the U.s entered SC waters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An inferior government may not dictate to a superior government.  Your argument fails morally, philosophically, and legally.
> 
> The act of war occurred when the CSA attacked federal forces.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> jake, I am so proud if you!!! You are learning. You are 100%correct inferiors do not dictate to superiors! The States dictated what few powers that the central body would hold. The States via their delegates established/dictated what powers the central body would hold. Therefore the State governments are the superiors.  Good gor you, your learning which is more than I can say for Paperview.
Click to expand...


----------



## paperview

Rogue -- I am so sorry your very well presented OP has been trashed into the lunacy of .....all this.


What could have been a very scholarly, high-end  debate, as your intro lent itself, instead has turned into portions of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and the usual  barking and sniping  -- of which I admit, I  have contributed a   portion. 

It's sad -- but the 'white pride' contingent and neo-confederates are  just so lost in their fantasies --


Talent like yours is wasted on them.  And so, their crazy parade takes over, and *sigh*  -- we find ourselves wallowing at times in lower ebbs of the sludge.

Know this: your OP still, will go down, as one of USMB's finest!


----------



## gipper

paperview said:


> Need more?
> 
> *The first shots were fired in January of 1861. *
> 
> Buchanan was President and he was trying to resupply Sumter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to enlarge
> 
> The South fired upon the Union Steamship Star of the West
> 
> They took another ship and seized it: "The Marion."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then converted her to a Man of War ship.
> *THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." ; SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR. *
> 
> Star of the West
> 
> Note the date on the Harpers Weekly newspaper:* January, 1861*, linked above.
> *THE FIRST OF THE WAR. *
> 
> "WE publish herewith pictures of the United States  steam-sloop Brooklyn, and of the steamship Star of the West, and of the steamship Marion, which three vessels figured so prominently in the movements of last week; and on page 37 we give a large plan of  Charleston harbor, showing the forts, etc., together with a view of  Fort Johnson. These pictures will enable our readers to realize what is going on in this most memorable contest of the present age.
> 
> On Wednesday morning, January 9, 1861, the
> 
> *first shots were fired At daybreak on that morning at the steamship Star of the West, with 250 United States troops on board, attempted to enter the harbor of Charleston for the purpose of communicating with  Fort Sumter*
> 
> The people of Charleston had been warned of her coming and of her errand by telegraph. They determined to prevent her reaching  Fort Sumter. *Accordingly, as soon as she came within range, batteries on Morris Island and at Fort Moultrie opened on her*. The first shot was fired across her bows ;
> 
> whereupon she increased her speed, and hoisted the  stars and stripes. Other shots were then fired in rapid succession from Morris Island, two or more of which hulled the steamer, and compelled her to put about and go to sea.
> 
> The accompanying picture shows the Star of the West as she entered  Charleston harbor; the plan will explain the situation of the forts, and the position of the steamer when she was fired upon. The channel through which she passed runs close by Morris Island for some distance.
> Fort Sumter made no demonstration, except at the port-holes, where guns were run out bearing on Morris Island."
> 
> 
> They did this before Lincoln even set foot in the office. Before they had even all officially Seceded. * An ACT OF WAR. *
> *
> Seizing government property of forts and arsenals all across the South is also an Act of War. *



To the Lincoln cultist the firing on Ft. Sumter by SC state troops, in which no one was killed, is an act of war.  As such, Lincoln and the Federal government was justified in destroying all seceding states (not just SC), subverting the Constitution, and the deaths of 850k Americans.  How small minded does one have to be, to think a bloodless bombing is worth that?

The cultist ignores the fact that nearly all federal facilities in seceding states, were peacefully surrendered. 

The cultist ignores that the seceding states offered Lincoln compensation for all federal facilities on their land and their share of the federal deficit.  All of which, Lincoln ignored.   

The cultist also ignores the fact that Lincoln set up events at Ft Sumter, to provoke war...and even now after all these years, Americans still believe his deception.


----------



## Rogue 9

James, you never did answer the question. 


Rogue 9 said:


> If the Articles government was working so well, *why was a convention called to alter it?*


The answer to that question is instructive, but I'm curious to see your opinion.

Also, to address this:  


James Everett said:


> One last thing...
> Rogue9, You state that YOUR passport shows you as a U.S. citizen; this is because YOU submitted to the fictional jurisdiction established under UCC, I would not expect any ignorant such as you who has clearly shewn himself to have no understanding of his own U.S. CONstitution to understand how to obtain a passport wherein you are a flesh and blood American citizen. I have witnessed this having been accomplished by the Late Douglas McPherson, who had more intelligence in his little toe, than you have in your feeble brain.


Charming.  Tell me, did George Washington also submit to "the fictional jurisdiction established under UCC," whatever UCC is supposed to mean in this context?  From his Last Will and Testament:  





			
				George Washington said:
			
		

> I, George Washington of Mount Vernon, *a citizen of the United States and lately President of the same*, do make, ordain and declare this instrument, which is written with my own hand and every page thereof subscribed with my name, to be my last Will and Testament, revoking all others.


That isn't exactly new language, sir.  

I apologize for letting this get so out of hand; I was occupied all day and into the evening on Wednesday and I'm only just now catching up with the several pages of posts that appeared in the interval.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Rogue 9 said:


> without slavery none of it would have happened), and that is what matters to the causes of the war.



wrong of course, Lincoln did not object to slavery as much as he objected to the slave power or the highly concentrated wealth that came with the slave economy.
You could just as easily say it would not have happened without Kansas or Nebraska.

In the end it was the same old clash between Plato and Aristotle or between freedom and big liberal govt. Lincoln was on the side of big liberal govt and did more to reverse the principles of the Revolution than FDR.


----------



## Rogue 9

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> without slavery none of it would have happened), and that is what matters to the causes of the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wrong of course, Lincoln did not object to slavery as much as he objected to the slave power or the highly concentrated wealth that came with the slave economy.
> You could just as easily say it would not have happened without Kansas or Nebraska.
> 
> In the end it was the same old clash between Plato and Aristotle or between freedom and big liberal govt. Lincoln was on the side of big liberal govt and did more to reverse the principles of the Revolution than FDR.
Click to expand...

You miss the point entirely.  If the Slave Power did not feel the need to protect the institution of slavery, they would not have opted for secession and war.  Lincoln's actual opinion is immaterial to the issue (not that you have that right either).


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Rogue 9 said:


> .  If the Slave Power did not feel the need to protect the institution of slavery, they would not have opted for secession and war.



Yes , I agree. They were protecting their freedom from big liberal govt.


----------



## Rogue 9

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .  If the Slave Power did not feel the need to protect the institution of slavery, they would not have opted for secession and war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes , I agree. They were protecting their freedom from big liberal govt.
Click to expand...

Did you seriously just say that?  I mean, really, did you actually just say that? 

The Slave Power had been wielding the federal government like a club for nearly eighty years.  The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 ran roughshod over the rights of the free states.  If that wasn't enough, the delegates of the Deep South states walked out of the Democratic National Convention in 1860 because the convention refused to add a platform plank calling for a federal guarantee of slave property in every single U.S. territory. That is, they bailed on their party, nominated Breckinridge, and thereby elected Lincoln because they did not get *an unprecedented expansion of federal power* that they had demanded.  It cannot be stressed enough that the secessions were over an unmet demand for a *federal guarantee of slavery*.  Here, read this; it'll help.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Rogue 9 said:


> the convention refused to add a platform plank calling for a federal guarantee of slave property in every single U.S. territory. That is, they bailed on their party, nominated Breckinridge, and thereby elected Lincoln because they did not get *an unprecedented expansion of federal power* that they had demanded.  It cannot be stressed enough that the secessions were over an unmet demand for a *federal guarantee of slavery*.  Here, read this; it'll help.



and still the war was caused because the south did not want to submit to liberal central govt. Do you understand now?


----------



## Discombobulated

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the convention refused to add a platform plank calling for a federal guarantee of slave property in every single U.S. territory. That is, they bailed on their party, nominated Breckinridge, and thereby elected Lincoln because they did not get *an unprecedented expansion of federal power* that they had demanded.  It cannot be stressed enough that the secessions were over an unmet demand for a *federal guarantee of slavery*.  Here, read this; it'll help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and still the war was caused because the south did not want to submit to liberal central govt. Do you understand now?
Click to expand...


Have you ever in your whole life said anything that made any sense to anyone?


----------



## Discombobulated

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> without slavery none of it would have happened), and that is what matters to the causes of the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wrong of course, Lincoln did not object to slavery as much as he objected to the slave power or the highly concentrated wealth that came with the slave economy.
> You could just as easily say it would not have happened without Kansas or Nebraska.
> 
> In the end it was the same old clash between Plato and Aristotle or between freedom and big liberal govt. Lincoln was on the side of big liberal govt and did more to reverse the principles of the Revolution than FDR.
Click to expand...


The freedom to hold slaves.......interesting manifestation of freedom.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Discombobulated said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the convention refused to add a platform plank calling for a federal guarantee of slave property in every single U.S. territory. That is, they bailed on their party, nominated Breckinridge, and thereby elected Lincoln because they did not get *an unprecedented expansion of federal power* that they had demanded.  It cannot be stressed enough that the secessions were over an unmet demand for a *federal guarantee of slavery*.  Here, read this; it'll help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and still the war was caused because the south did not want to submit to liberal central govt. Do you understand now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever in your whole life said anything that made any sense to anyone?
Click to expand...


dear, if you feel conservatism does not make sense please say why or admit as a typical liberal you lack the IQ to be here.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Discombobulated said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> without slavery none of it would have happened), and that is what matters to the causes of the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wrong of course, Lincoln did not object to slavery as much as he objected to the slave power or the highly concentrated wealth that came with the slave economy.
> You could just as easily say it would not have happened without Kansas or Nebraska.
> 
> In the end it was the same old clash between Plato and Aristotle or between freedom and big liberal govt. Lincoln was on the side of big liberal govt and did more to reverse the principles of the Revolution than FDR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The freedom to hold slaves.......interesting manifestation of freedom.
Click to expand...


yes dear one that was incorporated in the Constitution to form the union. Ever heard of the Constitution? See what happens when you stop playing Grouch Marx??.


----------



## Discombobulated

Rogue 9 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .  If the Slave Power did not feel the need to protect the institution of slavery, they would not have opted for secession and war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes , I agree. They were protecting their freedom from big liberal govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you seriously just say that?  I mean, really, did you actually just say that?
> 
> The Slave Power had been wielding the federal government like a club for nearly eighty years.  The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 ran roughshod over the rights of the free states.  If that wasn't enough, the delegates of the Deep South states walked out of the Democratic National Convention in 1860 because the convention refused to add a platform plank calling for a federal guarantee of slave property in every single U.S. territory. That is, they bailed on their party, nominated Breckinridge, and thereby elected Lincoln because they did not get *an unprecedented expansion of federal power* that they had demanded.  It cannot be stressed enough that the secessions were over an unmet demand for a *federal guarantee of slavery*.  Here, read this; it'll help.
Click to expand...


Yeah he really did say that.   Things like him don't live anywhere outside mindless rhetorical dogma.


----------



## Discombobulated

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> without slavery none of it would have happened), and that is what matters to the causes of the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wrong of course, Lincoln did not object to slavery as much as he objected to the slave power or the highly concentrated wealth that came with the slave economy.
> You could just as easily say it would not have happened without Kansas or Nebraska.
> 
> In the end it was the same old clash between Plato and Aristotle or between freedom and big liberal govt. Lincoln was on the side of big liberal govt and did more to reverse the principles of the Revolution than FDR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The freedom to hold slaves.......interesting manifestation of freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes dear one that was incorporated in the Constitution to form the union. Ever heard of the Constitution?
Click to expand...


Wrong again dummy, slavery was never guaranteed by the Constitution.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Discombobulated said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .  If the Slave Power did not feel the need to protect the institution of slavery, they would not have opted for secession and war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes , I agree. They were protecting their freedom from big liberal govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you seriously just say that?  I mean, really, did you actually just say that?
> 
> The Slave Power had been wielding the federal government like a club for nearly eighty years.  The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 ran roughshod over the rights of the free states.  If that wasn't enough, the delegates of the Deep South states walked out of the Democratic National Convention in 1860 because the convention refused to add a platform plank calling for a federal guarantee of slave property in every single U.S. territory. That is, they bailed on their party, nominated Breckinridge, and thereby elected Lincoln because they did not get *an unprecedented expansion of federal power* that they had demanded.  It cannot be stressed enough that the secessions were over an unmet demand for a *federal guarantee of slavery*.  Here, read this; it'll help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah he really did say that.   Things like him don't live anywhere outside mindless rhetorical dogma.
Click to expand...

argumentun ad hominem from typical liberal without IQ for substance


----------



## Discombobulated

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the convention refused to add a platform plank calling for a federal guarantee of slave property in every single U.S. territory. That is, they bailed on their party, nominated Breckinridge, and thereby elected Lincoln because they did not get *an unprecedented expansion of federal power* that they had demanded.  It cannot be stressed enough that the secessions were over an unmet demand for a *federal guarantee of slavery*.  Here, read this; it'll help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and still the war was caused because the south did not want to submit to liberal central govt. Do you understand now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever in your whole life said anything that made any sense to anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dear, if you feel conservatism does not make sense please say why or admit as a typical liberal you lack the IQ to be here.
Click to expand...

You really are a very stupid little man with an obviously low IQ.   If you had a higher IQ you might not be so repetitive.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Discombobulated said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> without slavery none of it would have happened), and that is what matters to the causes of the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wrong of course, Lincoln did not object to slavery as much as he objected to the slave power or the highly concentrated wealth that came with the slave economy.
> You could just as easily say it would not have happened without Kansas or Nebraska.
> 
> In the end it was the same old clash between Plato and Aristotle or between freedom and big liberal govt. Lincoln was on the side of big liberal govt and did more to reverse the principles of the Revolution than FDR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The freedom to hold slaves.......interesting manifestation of freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes dear one that was incorporated in the Constitution to form the union. Ever heard of the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again dummy, slavery was never guaranteed by the Constitution.
Click to expand...

dear, nobody said it was guaranteed. Nice try at a strawman. Back to playing Groucho Marx for you. Its your best role.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Discombobulated said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the convention refused to add a platform plank calling for a federal guarantee of slave property in every single U.S. territory. That is, they bailed on their party, nominated Breckinridge, and thereby elected Lincoln because they did not get *an unprecedented expansion of federal power* that they had demanded.  It cannot be stressed enough that the secessions were over an unmet demand for a *federal guarantee of slavery*.  Here, read this; it'll help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and still the war was caused because the south did not want to submit to liberal central govt. Do you understand now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever in your whole life said anything that made any sense to anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dear, if you feel conservatism does not make sense please say why or admit as a typical liberal you lack the IQ to be here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really are a very stupid little man with an obviously low IQ.   If you had a higher IQ you might not be so repetitive.
Click to expand...

ad hominem


----------



## Discombobulated

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> without slavery none of it would have happened), and that is what matters to the causes of the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wrong of course, Lincoln did not object to slavery as much as he objected to the slave power or the highly concentrated wealth that came with the slave economy.
> You could just as easily say it would not have happened without Kansas or Nebraska.
> 
> In the end it was the same old clash between Plato and Aristotle or between freedom and big liberal govt. Lincoln was on the side of big liberal govt and did more to reverse the principles of the Revolution than FDR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The freedom to hold slaves.......interesting manifestation of freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes dear one that was incorporated in the Constitution to form the union. Ever heard of the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again dummy, slavery was never guaranteed by the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, nobody said it was guaranteed. Nice try at a strawman. Back to playing Groucho Marx for you. Its your best role.
Click to expand...


Much like the other dummies on this thread you have failed utterly to make any kind of persuasive argument or to substantiate your view in any way.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Discombobulated said:


> you have failed utterly to make any kind of persuasive argument or to substantiate your view in any way.



dear, you must say where the logic broke down. We could all say the other guy failed to make his argument. Do you see why we say the liberal will always be slow? Imagine, you had to be taught that? You copy Groucho Marx becuase that is what you are good at. Its a great skill too!!


----------



## Discombobulated

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have failed utterly to make any kind of persuasive argument or to substantiate your view in any way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dear, you must say where the logic broke down. We could all say the other guy failed to make his argument. Do you see why we say the liberal will always be slow? Imagine, you had to be taught that? You copy Groucho Marx becuase that is what you are good at. Its a great skill too!!
Click to expand...


When you mix and match history to fit contemporary political rhetoric it just makes you look more stupid than you did already.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Rogue 9 said:


> The Slave Power had been wielding the federal government like a club for nearly eighty years. .



yes and then the Republicans took over, the South  did not want to submit, much like our founders did not want to submit, and the war started. Do you understand?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Discombobulated said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have failed utterly to make any kind of persuasive argument or to substantiate your view in any way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dear, you must say where the logic broke down. We could all say the other guy failed to make his argument. Do you see why we say the liberal will always be slow? Imagine, you had to be taught that? You copy Groucho Marx becuase that is what you are good at. Its a great skill too!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you mix and match history to fit contemporary political rhetoric it just makes you look more stupid than you did already.
Click to expand...


if so you would not be so afraid to give your best example for the whole world to see. What do you learn from your fear? Time to copy a line from Groucho?


----------



## Discombobulated

Following the professor's logic:  liberal is the anti slavery position......therefore pro slavery must be the conservative position.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Discombobulated said:


> Following the professor's logic:  liberal is the anti slavery position......therefore pro slavery must be the conservative position.



no dear the dispute throughout human history as defined by Plato and Aristotle and, later,   our founders, was between freedom and govt. And yes sometimes people do horrible things with freedom. Confused?


----------



## Discombobulated

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Following the professor's logic:  liberal is the anti slavery position......therefore pro slavery must be the conservative position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no dear the dispute throughout human history as defined by Plato and Aristotle and, later,   our founders, was between freedom and govt. And yes sometimes people do horrible things with freedom. Confused?
Click to expand...


....and so logically when people abuse their freedom to do horrible things that particular freedom should be amended.   Or maybe you think people shouldn't have the power to fight injustice.


----------



## Rogue 9

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Slave Power had been wielding the federal government like a club for nearly eighty years. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes and then the Republicans took over, the South  did not want to submit, much like our founders did not want to submit, and the war started. Do you understand?
Click to expand...

There wasn't anything to submit _to._ Lincoln's government hadn't even done anything, up to and including taken office! 

Anyway, while I'm on the subject of Washington and his views on citizenship, I might as well go into it further.  He had quite a bit to say about the nature of the Union, after all. 

First, this letter to Reverend William Gordon.

_It now rests with the Confederated Powers, by the line of conduct they mean to adopt, to make this Country great, happy, and respectable; or to sink it into littleness; worse perhaps, into Anarchy and Confusion; for certain I am, that *unless adequate Powers are given to Congress for the general purposes of the Federal Union that we shall soon moulder into dust and become contemptable in the Eyes of Europe, if we are not made the sport of their Politicks; to suppose that the general concern of this Country can be directed by thirteen heads, or one head without competent powers, is a solecism*, the bad effects of which every Man who has had the practical knowledge to judge from, that I have, is fully convinced of; tho' none perhaps has felt them in so forcible, and distressing a degree. The People at large, and at a distance from the theatre of Action, who only know that the Machine was kept in motion, and that they are at last arrived at the first object of their Wishes are satisfied with the event, without investigating the causes of the slow progress to it, or of the Expences which have accrued and which they now seem unwilling to pay; great part of which has arisen from that want of energy in the Federal Constitution which I am complaining of, and which I wish to see given to it by a Convention of the People, instead of hearing it remarked that as we have worked through an arduous Contest with the Powers Congress already have (but which, by the by, have been gradually diminishing) why should they be invested with more?

To say nothing of the invisible workings of Providence, which has conducted us through difficulties where no human foresight could point the way; it will appear evident to a close Examiner, that there has been a concatenation of causes to produce this Event; which in all probability at no time, or under any Circumstances, will combine again. We deceive ourselves therefore by this mode of reasoning, and what would be much worse, we may bring ruin upon ourselves by attempting to carry it into practice.

*We are known by no other character among Nations than as the United States; Massachusetts or Virginia is no better defined, nor any more thought of by Foreign Powers than the County of Worcester in Massachusetts is by Virginia, or Glouster County in Virginia is by Massachusetts (respectable as they are); and yet these Counties, with as much propriety might oppose themselves to the Laws of the State in wch. they are, as an Individual State can oppose itself to the Federal Government, by which it is, or ought to be bound.* Each of these Counties has, no doubt, its local polity and Interests. these should be attended to, and brought before their respective legislatures with all the force their importance merits; *but when they come in contact with the general Interest of the State; when superior considerations preponderate in favor of the whole, their Voices should be heard no more; so should it be with individual States when compared to the Union. Otherwise I think it may properly be asked for what purpose do we farcically pretend to be United? *Why do Congress spend Months together in deliberating upon, debating, and digesting plans, which are made as palatable, and as wholesome to the Constitution of this Country as the nature of things will admit of, when some States will pay no attention to them, and others regard them but partially; by which means all those evils which proceed from delay, are felt by the whole; while the compliant States are not only suffering by these neglects, but in many instances are injured most capitally by their own exertions; which are wasted for want of the United effort. A hundd. thousand men coming one after another cannot move a Ton weight; but the united strength of 50 would transport it with ease. so has it been with great part of the expence which has been incurred this War. *In a Word, I think the blood and treasure which has been spent in it has been lavished to little purpose, unless we can be better Cemented; and that is not to be effected while so little attention is paid to the recommendations of the Sovereign Power.*

To me it would seem not more absurd, to hear a traveller, who was setting out on a long journey, declare he would take no Money in his pocket to defray the Expences of it but rather depend upon chance and charity lest he should misapply it, than are the expressions of so much fear of the powers and means of Congress. For Heavens sake who are Congress? are they not the Creatures of the People, amenable to them for their Conduct, and dependant from day to day on their breath? Where then can be the danger of giving them such Powers as are adequate to the great ends of Government, and to all the general purposes of the Confederation *(I repeat the word genl, because I am no advocate for their having to do with the particular policy of any State, further than it concerns the Union at large).* What may be the consequences if they have not these Powers I am at no loss to guess; and deprecate the worst; for sure I am, we shall, in a little time, become as contemptable in the great Scale of Politicks as we now have it in our power to be respectable; and that, *when the band of Union gets once broken, every thing ruinous to our future prospects is to be apprehended*; the best that can come of it, in my humble opinion is, that we shall sink into obscurity, unless our Civil broils should keep us in remembrance and fill the page of history with the direful consequences of them._

I omit quote tags because at this point I suspect that certain people in the thread aren't actually opening them to read the contents.  At any rate, he could hardly be more clear; the states have no more right to nullify or contravene the acts of the federal government than counties do to override their states (and in point of fact, state preemption of local laws on certain subjects has become very popular of late), and the federal government is, quote, "the Sovereign Power." 

Or how about this 1787 letter to David Stuart, accompanying copies of the Federalist Papers and urging their distribution: 

_I have seen no publication yet that ought, in my judgment, to shake the proposed Constitution in the mind of an impartial and candid public. In fine, I have hardly seen one that is not addressed to the passions of the people, and obviously calculated to alarm their fears. Every attempt to amend the Constitution at this time is in my opinion idle and vain. *If there are characters, who prefer disunion, or separate confederacies, to the general government, which is offered to them, their opposition may, for aught I know, proceed from principle; but as nothing, according to my conception of the matter, is more to be deprecated than a disunion of these distinct confederacies, as far as my voice can go it shall be offered in favor of the latter.* That there are some writers, and others perhaps who may not have written, that wish to see this Union divided into several confederacies, is pretty evident. As an antidote to these opinions, and in order to investigate the ground of objections to the Constitution which is submitted, the Federalist, under the signature of PUBLIUS, is written. The numbers which have been published, I send you. If there is a printer in Richmond who is really well disposed to support the new Constitution, he would do well to give them a place in his paper. They are, I think I may venture to say, written by able men; and before they are finished will, or I am mistaken, place matters in a true point of light. Although I am acquainted with the writers, who have a hand in this work, I am not at liberty to mention names, nor would I have it known that they are sent by me to you for promulgation._

Again, pretty clear:  The United States are exactly that. 

Or how about this letter to John Jay in 1786: 

_Your sentiments, that our affairs are drawing rapidly to a crisis, accord with my own. What the event will be, is also beyond the reach of my foresight. We have errors to correct; we have probably had too good an opinion of human nature in forming our confederation. Experience has taught us, that men will not adopt and carry into execution measures the best calculated for their own good, without the intervention of a coercive power. *I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation without having lodged some where a power, which will pervade the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the State Governments extends over the several States.*

To be fearful of investing Congress, constituted as that body is, with ample authorities for national purposes, appears to me the very climax of popular absurdity and madness. Could Congress exert them for the detriment of the public, without injuring themselves in an equal or greater proportion? Are not their interests inseparably connected with those of their constituents? By the rotation of appointment, must they not mingle frequently with the mass of Citizens? Is it not rather to be apprehended, if they were possessed of the powers before described, that the individual members would be induced to use them, on many occasions, very timidly and inefficaciously for fear of losing their popularity and future election? We must take human nature as we find it: perfection falls not to the share of mortals. Many are of opinion that Congress have too frequently made use of the suppliant humble tone of requisition, in applications to the States, when they had a right to assert their imperial dignity and command obedience. Be that as it may, requisitions are a perfect nihility where thirteen sovereign independent disunited States are in the habit of discussing and refusing compliance with them at their option. Requisitions are actually little better than a jest and a bye word throughout the land. *If you tell the Legislatures they have violated the Treaty of Peace, and invaded the prerogatives of the confederacy, they will laugh in your face.* What then is to be done? Things cannot go on in the same train forever. It is much to be feared, as you observe, that the better kind of people, being disgusted with the circumstances, will have their minds prepared for any revolution whatever. We are apt to run from one extreme into another. To anticipate and prevent disastrous contingencies, would be the part of wisdom and patriotism.

What astonishing changes a few years are capable of producing. I am told that even respectable characters speak of a monarchical form of Government without horror. From thinking proceeds speaking, thence to acting is often but a single step. But how irrevocable and tremendous! what a triumph for our enemies to verify their predictions! what a triumph for the advocates of despotism to find that we are incapable of governing ourselves, and that systems founded on the basis of equal liberty are merely ideal and fallacious! Would to God that wise measures may be taken in time to avert the consequences we have but too much reason to apprehend._

The "Treaty of Peace" he referred to is the 1783 Treaty of Paris which ended the Revolutionary War; though the terms of the treaty forbid retaliation against British loyalists and demand honoring of debts on both sides, several states, notably Virginia, confiscated property from them as a matter of course and passed laws forbidding the payment of British debts.  The inability of the Articles Congress to enforce the terms of the treaty was grounds for a lot of foreign tension in the years immediately after the war.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Rogue 9 said:


> There wasn't anything to submit _to._ Lincoln's government hadn't even done anything, up to and including taken office!
> .



on come on that is silly. The tide had turned against the South and everyone knew it!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Rogue 9 said:


> The inability of the Articles Congress to enforce the terms of the treaty was grounds for a lot of foreign tension in the years immediately after the war.



do you have any idea what your subject is?? This is supposed to be about Civil War causes. Do you have any idea what caused the civil war?


----------



## Rogue 9

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The inability of the Articles Congress to enforce the terms of the treaty was grounds for a lot of foreign tension in the years immediately after the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you have any idea what your subject is?? This is supposed to be about Civil War causes. Do you have any idea what caused the civil war?
Click to expand...

Yes, I do know what my subject is.  The point is to establish that the men who wrote the Constitution (George Washington chaired the Constitutional Convention the year after writing that) did not intend for the Union to be broken up.  As you may or may not have noticed, the subject of the thread kind of got changed back on page 3.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Rogue 9 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The inability of the Articles Congress to enforce the terms of the treaty was grounds for a lot of foreign tension in the years immediately after the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you have any idea what your subject is?? This is supposed to be about Civil War causes. Do you have any idea what caused the civil war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I do know what my subject is.  The point is to establish that the men who wrote the Constitution (George Washington chaired the Constitutional Convention the year after writing that) did not intend for the Union to be broken up.  As you may or may not have noticed, the subject of the thread kind of got changed back on page 3.
Click to expand...


and so is the subject as the title implies: causes of civil war? Do you know the causes?


----------



## Rogue 9

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The inability of the Articles Congress to enforce the terms of the treaty was grounds for a lot of foreign tension in the years immediately after the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you have any idea what your subject is?? This is supposed to be about Civil War causes. Do you have any idea what caused the civil war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I do know what my subject is.  The point is to establish that the men who wrote the Constitution (George Washington chaired the Constitutional Convention the year after writing that) did not intend for the Union to be broken up.  As you may or may not have noticed, the subject of the thread kind of got changed back on page 3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and so is the subject as the title implies: causes of civil war? Do you know the causes?
Click to expand...

Yes.  Read the OP, I assure you it's quite thorough, though not as thorough as it could be because I ran into the character limit in the place it was originally posted.


----------



## MaryL

Here is a big WHAT IF: What if The Union had let the  south secede from the Union? How many lives would that have spared? And, slavery would have ended in 20 or 30 years because morally it was wrong, but because of other causes, cheap labor and machines do it better. I could live  with the Confederation of the south.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Rogue 9 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The inability of the Articles Congress to enforce the terms of the treaty was grounds for a lot of foreign tension in the years immediately after the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you have any idea what your subject is?? This is supposed to be about Civil War causes. Do you have any idea what caused the civil war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I do know what my subject is.  The point is to establish that the men who wrote the Constitution (George Washington chaired the Constitutional Convention the year after writing that) did not intend for the Union to be broken up.  As you may or may not have noticed, the subject of the thread kind of got changed back on page 3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and so is the subject as the title implies: causes of civil war? Do you know the causes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.  Read the OP, I assure you it's quite thorough, though not as thorough as it could be because I ran into the character limit in the place it was originally posted.
Click to expand...

as long as you agree the Civil War was standard clash between freedom and big liberal govt.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

MaryL said:


> Here is a big WHAT IF: What if The Union had let the  south secede from the Union? How many lives would that have spared? And, slavery would have ended in 20 or 30 years because morally it was wrong, but because of other causes, cheap labor and machines do it better. I could live  with the Confederation of the south.



probably about 800,000 lives would have been spared at a time when population was only 30 million as I recall. Not to mention blacks would have been better off too when you consider how many  died from disease and starvation after war and how war hardened attitudes against them.


----------



## paperview

MaryL said:


> Here is a big WHAT IF: What if The Union had let the  south secede from the Union? How many lives would that have spared? And, slavery would have ended in 20 or 30 years because morally it was wrong, but because of other causes, cheap labor and machines do it better. I could live  with the Confederation of the south.


You could live if you were one of the four million slaves living in the total population of the 9 million south?  Nearly half the population?

For how long?

Some states were *majority* slave population.  It wasn't dying out.

*The entire black race  -- including free blacks* -- *were not even citizens* when the Civil War started, and you "could live with that?"


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

paperview said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a big WHAT IF: What if The Union had let the  south secede from the Union? How many lives would that have spared? And, slavery would have ended in 20 or 30 years because morally it was wrong, but because of other causes, cheap labor and machines do it better. I could live  with the Confederation of the south.
> 
> 
> 
> You could live if you were one of the four million slaves living in the total population of the 9 million south?  Nearly half the population?
> 
> For how long?
> 
> Some states were *majority* slave population.  It wasn't dying out.
> 
> *The entire black race  -- including free blacks* -- *were not even citizens* when the Civil War started, and you "could live with that?"
Click to expand...


slavery died out almost everywhere on earth . It would have died out here too without 800,000 being killed and 100 years of Jim Crow


----------



## Rogue 9

MaryL said:


> Here is a big WHAT IF: What if The Union had let the  south secede from the Union? How many lives would that have spared? And, slavery would have ended in 20 or 30 years because morally it was wrong, but because of other causes, cheap labor and machines do it better. I could live  with the Confederation of the south.


**AHEM**

_Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, *and which her people intended should exist in all future time.*_

You were saying?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

paperview said:


> For how long?



longer that you could live with Civil War and its aftermath


----------



## paperview

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a big WHAT IF: What if The Union had let the  south secede from the Union? How many lives would that have spared? And, slavery would have ended in 20 or 30 years because morally it was wrong, but because of other causes, cheap labor and machines do it better. I could live  with the Confederation of the south.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> probably about 800,000 lives would have been spared at a time when population was only 30 million as I recall. Not to mention blacks would have been better off too when you consider how many  died from disease and starvation after war and how war hardened attitudes against them.
Click to expand...

Yeah, fuck the 4 million who were property - treated as property to be bought as sold as farm animals, eh?

Put on auction blocks and sold  and had their families torn apart, raped by their slavemasters, who the fuck cared for them anyhow, eh?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Rogue 9 said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a big WHAT IF: What if The Union had let the  south secede from the Union? How many lives would that have spared? And, slavery would have ended in 20 or 30 years because morally it was wrong, but because of other causes, cheap labor and machines do it better. I could live  with the Confederation of the south.
> 
> 
> 
> **AHEM**
> 
> _Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, *and which her people intended should exist in all future time.*_
> 
> You were saying?
Click to expand...

that slavery died out everywhere on earth with Lincoln's liberal interference.


----------



## paperview

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> For how long?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> longer that you could live with Civil War and its aftermath
Click to expand...

Thank your lucky stars Lincoln kept the Union together.

You wouldn't be here today.

Nor would the United States as you know it.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

paperview said:


> Yeah, fuck the 4 million who were property - treated as property to be bought as sold as farm animals, eh?


calm down dear, 800,000 got killed many of whom were blacks so it was hardly an ideal solution


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

paperview said:


> You wouldn't be here today.
> .



idiotic speculation which is why you didn't support it.


----------



## paperview

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a big WHAT IF: What if The Union had let the  south secede from the Union? How many lives would that have spared? And, slavery would have ended in 20 or 30 years because morally it was wrong, but because of other causes, cheap labor and machines do it better. I could live  with the Confederation of the south.
> 
> 
> 
> **AHEM**
> 
> _Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, *and which her people intended should exist in all future time.*_
> 
> You were saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that slavery died out everywhere on earth with Lincoln's liberal interference.
Click to expand...

But not here.  The South wouldn't let it go without fighting to the bloody death to preserve her precious institution of human bondage.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

paperview said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a big WHAT IF: What if The Union had let the  south secede from the Union? How many lives would that have spared? And, slavery would have ended in 20 or 30 years because morally it was wrong, but because of other causes, cheap labor and machines do it better. I could live  with the Confederation of the south.
> 
> 
> 
> **AHEM**
> 
> _Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, *and which her people intended should exist in all future time.*_
> 
> You were saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that slavery died out everywhere on earth with Lincoln's liberal interference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But not here.  The South wouldn't let it go without fighting to the bloody death to preserve her precious institution of human bondage.
Click to expand...


idiotic speculation which is why you didn't suppoprt it nor explain how 800,000 dead helped the matter.


----------



## Rogue 9

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Read the OP, I assure you it's quite thorough, though not as thorough as it could be because I ran into the character limit in the place it was originally posted.
> 
> 
> 
> as long as you agree the Civil War was standard clash between freedom and big liberal govt.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you have your positions reversed.  


EdwardBaiamonte said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a big WHAT IF: What if The Union had let the  south secede from the Union? How many lives would that have spared? And, slavery would have ended in 20 or 30 years because morally it was wrong, but because of other causes, cheap labor and machines do it better. I could live  with the Confederation of the south.
> 
> 
> 
> You could live if you were one of the four million slaves living in the total population of the 9 million south?  Nearly half the population?
> 
> For how long?
> 
> Some states were *majority* slave population.  It wasn't dying out.
> 
> *The entire black race  -- including free blacks* -- *were not even citizens* when the Civil War started, and you "could live with that?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> slavery died out almost everywhere on earth . It would have died out here too without 800,000 being killed and 100 years of Jim Crow
Click to expand...

**AHEM**

_*Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.*_

That doesn't sound to me like the words of a man who intended for slavery to die out.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Rogue 9 said:


> That doesn't sound to me like the words of a man who intended for slavery to die out.



especially when backed into  a corner at which point mankind will dig in and fight harder than ever. Don't forget, most who fought had nothing to do with slavery, they fought for freedom just like our Founders


----------



## paperview

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Read the OP, I assure you it's quite thorough, though not as thorough as it could be because I ran into the character limit in the place it was originally posted.
> 
> 
> 
> as long as you agree the Civil War was standard clash between freedom and big liberal govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, but you have your positions reversed.
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a big WHAT IF: What if The Union had let the  south secede from the Union? How many lives would that have spared? And, slavery would have ended in 20 or 30 years because morally it was wrong, but because of other causes, cheap labor and machines do it better. I could live  with the Confederation of the south.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You could live if you were one of the four million slaves living in the total population of the 9 million south?  Nearly half the population?
> 
> For how long?
> 
> Some states were *majority* slave population.  It wasn't dying out.
> 
> *The entire black race  -- including free blacks* -- *were not even citizens* when the Civil War started, and you "could live with that?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> slavery died out almost everywhere on earth . It would have died out here too without 800,000 being killed and 100 years of Jim Crow
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> **AHEM**
> 
> _*Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.*_
> 
> That doesn't sound to me like the words of a man who intended for slavery to die out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> especially when backed into  a corner at which point mankind will dig in and fight harder than ever. Don't forget, most who fought had nothing to do with slavery, they fought for freedom just like our Founders
Click to expand...

Fought for freedom to keep men in bondage.

Hip hip HURRAH!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

paperview said:


> Fought for freedom to keep men in bondage.
> 
> Hip hip HURRAH!



that was not issue for most of them. You are pretending it was.

usa liberals tried to change majority culture in Iraq and created same result. Do y ou understand now?


----------



## paperview

It's what they went to war for, bub -- One in three southern families owned slaves.
It was the lifeblood of their economy.


It's WHY they fought.  Why they died.

Why they seceded.


Nothing you say will change that.


----------



## paperview




----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

paperview said:


> It's what they went to war for, bub -- One in three southern families owned slaves.
> It was the lifeblood of their economy.
> 
> 
> It's WHY they fought.  Why they died.
> 
> Why they seceded.
> 
> 
> Nothing you say will change that.



how about what Lincoln said:

On Aug. 22, 1862, President Lincoln wrote a letter to the New York Tribune that included the following passage: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."


----------



## paperview

Do you know how old and tired that quote by the Lost Causer gets -- trotted out when their backs are against the wall ?

It shows how stupid the South was to secede -- and fire on Union ships, and seize forts and arsenals, long before Lincoln ever set foot into office.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

paperview said:


> Do you know how old and tired that quote by the Lost Causer gets -- trotted out when their backs are against the wall ?
> 
> It shows how stupid the South was to secede -- and fire on Union ships, and seize forts and arsenals, long before Lincoln ever set foot into office.



the American Revolution looked just as stupid but thats not the point, liberalism is.


----------



## Rogue 9

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's what they went to war for, bub -- One in three southern families owned slaves.
> It was the lifeblood of their economy.
> 
> 
> It's WHY they fought.  Why they died.
> 
> Why they seceded.
> 
> 
> Nothing you say will change that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how about what Lincoln said:
> 
> On Aug. 22, 1862, President Lincoln wrote a letter to the New York Tribune that included the following passage: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."
Click to expand...

"I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free."

And?  So?  Therefore?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Rogue 9 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's what they went to war for, bub -- One in three southern families owned slaves.
> It was the lifeblood of their economy.
> 
> 
> It's WHY they fought.  Why they died.
> 
> Why they seceded.
> 
> 
> Nothing you say will change that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how about what Lincoln said:
> 
> On Aug. 22, 1862, President Lincoln wrote a letter to the New York Tribune that included the following passage: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
> 
> I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free."
> 
> And?  So?  Therefore?
Click to expand...


therefore all men should be free, in time.


----------



## Rogue 9

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know how old and tired that quote by the Lost Causer gets -- trotted out when their backs are against the wall ?
> 
> It shows how stupid the South was to secede -- and fire on Union ships, and seize forts and arsenals, long before Lincoln ever set foot into office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the American Revolution looked just as stupid but thats not the point, liberalism is.
Click to expand...

No, it really didn't.  You missed her point entirely, as usual; it was stupid because Lincoln was no threat to their institution _unless they did the very thing that they did._ To indulge in quoting Euripides, "Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad."  (As in crazy.  In case that's lost on you too.)


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Rogue 9 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know how old and tired that quote by the Lost Causer gets -- trotted out when their backs are against the wall ?
> 
> It shows how stupid the South was to secede -- and fire on Union ships, and seize forts and arsenals, long before Lincoln ever set foot into office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the American Revolution looked just as stupid but thats not the point, liberalism is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it really didn't.  You missed her point entirely, as usual; it was stupid because Lincoln was no threat to their institution _unless they did the very thing that they did._ To indulge in quoting Euripides, "Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad."  (As in crazy.  In case that's lost on you too.)
Click to expand...


Lincoln was 100% a threat to their aristocratic lifestyle. He was 100% opposed to their power and the way it prevented the little guy from rising up. THey stole land from his father in the course of consolidating there ever growing plantations. That was where Lincoln's hatred of the slave power came from. IN many ways it was similar to todays liberals and their hatred or corporate America.

Do you uderstand now?


----------



## Rogue 9

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know how old and tired that quote by the Lost Causer gets -- trotted out when their backs are against the wall ?
> 
> It shows how stupid the South was to secede -- and fire on Union ships, and seize forts and arsenals, long before Lincoln ever set foot into office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the American Revolution looked just as stupid but thats not the point, liberalism is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it really didn't.  You missed her point entirely, as usual; it was stupid because Lincoln was no threat to their institution _unless they did the very thing that they did._ To indulge in quoting Euripides, "Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad."  (As in crazy.  In case that's lost on you too.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln was 100% a threat to their aristocratic lifestyle. He was 100% opposed to their power and the way it prevented the little guy from rising up. THey stole land from his father in the course of consolidating there ever growing plantations. That was where Lincoln's hatred of the slave power came from.
Click to expand...

So you're disagreeing with yourself now?  If you're anti-tyranny, you would think opposing an aristocratic social order is the correct thing to do.  I'm glad you agree with me.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Rogue 9 said:


> So you're disagreeing with yourself now?  If you're anti-tyranny, you would think opposing an aristocratic social order is the correct thing to do.  I'm glad you agree with me.



yes it is correct to oppose, obviously,  but not with a war that kills 800,000 many of whom had been slaves.

Do you understand now?


----------



## paperview

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're disagreeing with yourself now?  If you're anti-tyranny, you would think opposing an aristocratic social order is the correct thing to do.  I'm glad you agree with me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes it is correct to oppose, obviously,  but not with a war that kills 800,000 many of whom had been slaves.
> 
> Do you understand now?
Click to expand...

Wow. Your thinking is so fucked up.  Overall.  Geeze. 

Most of the slaves did not die in the war.  A good bulk of the 4 mill were at home taking care of their massa's.  They were property to be taken care of like farm animals. Some served their massa in the war as servants, to be sure-- and some lost lives, as fodder.  But they were protected as one would protect a prize Cadillac.

Some of course escaped to the Union lines to fight for their  freedom, and about 5% in total to the whole were lost there, many to disease and infections, as were so many in that horrible war.

Don't you understand these people treated live, living, human beings as PROPERTY?? 

4 Million of them?  When will that sink through to you?


----------



## Discombobulated

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The inability of the Articles Congress to enforce the terms of the treaty was grounds for a lot of foreign tension in the years immediately after the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you have any idea what your subject is?? This is supposed to be about Civil War causes. Do you have any idea what caused the civil war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I do know what my subject is.  The point is to establish that the men who wrote the Constitution (George Washington chaired the Constitutional Convention the year after writing that) did not intend for the Union to be broken up.  As you may or may not have noticed, the subject of the thread kind of got changed back on page 3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and so is the subject as the title implies: causes of civil war? Do you know the causes?
Click to expand...


You clearly don't even begin to know anything about it.


----------



## Rogue 9

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're disagreeing with yourself now?  If you're anti-tyranny, you would think opposing an aristocratic social order is the correct thing to do.  I'm glad you agree with me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes it is correct to oppose, obviously,  but not with a war that kills 800,000 many of whom had been slaves.
> 
> Do you understand now?
Click to expand...

I understand that war is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things.  The Slave Power had to go.  If there was a side in the conflict representing tyranny, it was the South.


----------



## Discombobulated

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know how old and tired that quote by the Lost Causer gets -- trotted out when their backs are against the wall ?
> 
> It shows how stupid the South was to secede -- and fire on Union ships, and seize forts and arsenals, long before Lincoln ever set foot into office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the American Revolution looked just as stupid but thats not the point, liberalism is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it really didn't.  You missed her point entirely, as usual; it was stupid because Lincoln was no threat to their institution _unless they did the very thing that they did._ To indulge in quoting Euripides, "Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad."  (As in crazy.  In case that's lost on you too.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln was 100% a threat to their aristocratic lifestyle. He was 100% opposed to their power and the way it prevented the little guy from rising up. THey stole land from his father in the course of consolidating there ever growing plantations. That was where Lincoln's hatred of the slave power came from. IN many ways it was similar to todays liberals and their hatred or corporate America.
> 
> Do you uderstand now?
Click to expand...


It's pretty obvious that you don't know any history at all, let alone knowing the causes of the Civil War.   I think it's time we began your education in the hopes that you can be taught.   We'll start with something easy, take notes because there will be a quiz later.
Pre-Civil War Virginia Showdowns Video C-SPAN.org


----------



## James Everett

Rogue 9 said:


> James, you never did answer the question.
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Articles government was working so well, *why was a convention called to alter it?*
> 
> 
> 
> The answer to that question is instructive, but I'm curious to see your opinion.
> 
> Also, to address this:
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> One last thing...
> Rogue9, You state that YOUR passport shows you as a U.S. citizen; this is because YOU submitted to the fictional jurisdiction established under UCC, I would not expect any ignorant such as you who has clearly shewn himself to have no understanding of his own U.S. CONstitution to understand how to obtain a passport wherein you are a flesh and blood American citizen. I have witnessed this having been accomplished by the Late Douglas McPherson, who had more intelligence in his little toe, than you have in your feeble brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Charming.  Tell me, did George Washington also submit to "the fictional jurisdiction established under UCC," whatever UCC is supposed to mean in this context?  From his Last Will and Testament:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> George Washington said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I, George Washington of Mount Vernon, *a citizen of the United States and lately President of the same*, do make, ordain and declare this instrument, which is written with my own hand and every page thereof subscribed with my name, to be my last Will and Testament, revoking all others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That isn't exactly new language, sir.
> 
> I apologize for letting this get so out of hand; I was occupied all day and into the evening on Wednesday and I'm only just now catching up with the several pages of posts that appeared in the interval.
Click to expand...

Rogue9,
I appologize for the delay, but some of us do actually work for a living. Also allow me first to ask you this question.....
Are you, or which one of you idiots is Woodrow Major????
As to your first question.....
"If the Articles government was working so well, *why was a convention called to alter it?"
There was a split in the ideals of the Founders' one of which were the nationalists, these were those who quickly hijacked the title of federalists in order to con the people and gain favor and the upper hand, leaving the actual Federalists to be stuck with the label antifederalists. 
I somehow doubt that you actually know the difference between the two systems.
These Nationalists wanted a nation of power, grandeur and splendor to rival that of King George's Great Britain.
The real federalists who were falsely labeled anti federalists were content with a simple Confederacy between the States to protect the liberty of the people. 
Patrick HEnry explained it well on June 5th 1788.....
"Those Nations who have gone in search of power, grandeur and splendor, have all fallen a sacrifice, and been the victims of their own folly: While they acquired those visionary blessings, THEY LOST THEIR FREEDOM.
The Articles were working fine, it all depends on what goal you are trying to achieve, Liberty: or POWER, GRANDEUR, AND SPLENDOR ?
As we can clearly see with 20/20 hindsight, YOUR U.S. has become just what Patrick Henry warned...A nation of POWER Grandeur and Splendor, all at the sacrifice of our Liberty and Privacy. Edward Snowden recently exposed mush of this. 
You no longer have a union of States, what you now have is a wholly national system run by a two party duopoly which is owned by the wealthy elite, and is built on hegemony, war and a debt that will never be paid, and will ultimately cause its collapse. 
George Washington stated that he was a citizen of the U.S., NOT A U.S. Citizen.....Do you see the difference?????
I will copy and paste here the difference between a U.S. Citizen, and an American citizen.....
"There appears to be general misunderstanding by people in general as to the difference between a natural person and an artificial person. This document will explain that difference.

John Joseph Smith, is a natural, flesh and blood, person, created by God.

JOHN JOSEPH SMITH, is a U.S. corporate artificial person, U.S. citizen, created by the government.

In basic English grammar, a name spelled in upper and lower case, such as John Joseph Smith, is indicative of a flesh and blood man, a natural person. 

Person.In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers. Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed.

On the other hand, a name spelled in all caps, such as JOHN JOSEPH SMITH, is indicative of an artificial person.

Artificial persons.  Persons created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government, as distinguished from natural persons.Corporations are examples of artificial persons. Black's 6th Ed.

U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873) "The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress."

The "United States" is defined in Title 28 USC Sec. 3002(15)(A) as a "Federal corporation".

It is also a municipal corporation.

Municipal.In narrower, more common, sense, it means pertaining to a local governmental unit, commonly, a city or town or other governmental unit. In its broader sense, it means pertaining to the public or governmental affairs of a state or nation or of a people.Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed.

So the federal corporation United States, that pertains to the public affairs of a people, would be a municipal corporation.The federal government pertains to the affairs of its sovereign people.

Municipal corporation. A body corporate consisting of the inhabitants of a designated area created by the legislature with or without the consent of such inhabitants for governmental purposes . . .A municipal corporation has a dual character, the one public and the other private, and exercises corresponding twofold functions and duties -- one class consisting of those acts performed by it in the exercise of delegated sovereign powers for benefit of people generally, as arm of the state, enforcing general laws made in pursuance of general policy of the state, and the other consisting of acts done in exercise of power of the municipal corporation for its own benefit, or for the benefit of its citizens alone, or citizens of the municipal corporation and its immediate locality.  Black's 6th Ed.

A municipal corporation is an artificial person, as shown above, and consists of the general inhabitants called citizens, and these artificial persons (citizens) were created by the legislature, not by God. A corporation can be a citizen itself, and that corporation can have its own citizens. A corporation also has it's own officers. When a corporation is dissolved, then the officers of that corporation no longer exist. A government has it's own citizens and employees. When that government is dissolved, then those citizens also cease to exist, since both officers and citizens of a corporation are both artificial persons.

Corporate citizen. Corporate status in the state of incorporation . . . Black's 6th Ed.

A municipal corporation in its broader sense, such as the United States, consists of the inhabitants (U.S. citizens) of a designated area (federal United States). And a corporation can through its legislative branch create artificial persons, who are termed citizens of the municipal corporation. Can an artificial person create a flesh and blood natural man? Can the creator create a being superior to itself? Or can an artificial person only create (make) another artificial person?

I claim that when the municipal corporation United States, creates a citizen through legislative act, that citizen is then a corporate U.S. citizen. That corporate citizen's name is spelled in all capital letters, to indicate that it is an artificial person, as distinguished from a natural person whose name is spelled in upper and lower case letters. That corporate citizen is subject to its creator, the U.S. government, and is subject to its exclusive jurisdiction.

Constitution of the United States of America
14th Amendment. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any States deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

A citizen of the United States is a corporate citizen, with corporate status, created by the corporation called United States, and is acting as their agent for the purpose of collecting revenue. This citizen has only privileges and immunities under the 14th Amendment. A natural person has inalienable rights, secured by the Constitution. A person with corporate status, would have corporate income.



COLLECTIVE ENTITY RULE


Brasswell v. United States 487 U.S. 99 (1988) This doctrine - known as the collective entity rule- has a lengthy and distinguished pedigree.

What is a "collective entity"? A collective entity is simply a corporate entity. Since the status of U.S. citizen can be created by naturalization let's see what naturalization is, and determine if a U.S. citizen is part of a collective entity.

Naturalization.The process by which a person acquires nationality after birth and becomes entitled to the privileges of U.S. citizenship. In the United States collective naturalization occurs when designated groups are made citizens by treaty (as Louisiana Purchase), or by a law of Congress (as in annexation of Texas and Hawaii). Black's 6th Ed.

Person.Scope and delineation of term necessary for determining to whom Fourteenth Amendment of Constitution affords protections since this Amendment expressly applies to "person".

Let's review the definition of artificial person.

Artificial persons.  Persons created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government, as distinguished from natural persons. Corporations are examples of artificial persons. Black's 6th Ed.

The 14th Amendment applies to "persons", and person in legal parlance means an artificial person, in distinction from a natural person. "Collective" "naturalization occurs when designated groups" (inhabitants) "are made (created) citizens by a law of Congress".  These artificial persons were "created and devised by human laws (14th Amendment U.S. citizen) for the (revenue) purposes of society and government", and have their names spelled in all capital letters. These designated groups are "made" or created corporate citizens/employees and are distinguished from natural persons.

A natural person, with his named spelled in upper and lower case letters, has inalienable rights, and is NOT a corporate U.S. citizen. An artificial person, and corporate citizen of the United States, has his name spelled in all capital letters. A natural person cannot be an artificial person at the same time.

The theme of the collective entity rule states:
Brasswell v. United States 487 U.S. 99 (1988) quoting, United States v. White 322 U.S. 694 (1944) But individuals, when acting as representatives of a collective group, cannot be said to be exercising their personal rights and duties, nor be entitled to their purely personal privileges. Rather they assume the rights, duties and privileges of the artificial entity or association of which they are agentsor officers and they are bound by its obligations.

Under the collective entity rule, if John Joseph Smith contracted to be a representative or agent of the corporate citizen JOHN JOSEPH SMITH, then he would not be able to exercise his inalienable rights, which are his personal rights. John Joseph Smith (American Citizen) is contracting to be the agent of JOHN JOSEPH SMITH (U.S. citizen), thereby waiving his inalienable rights.

After the birth of John Joseph Smith, a new artificial person was created (JOHN JOSEPH SMITH), by the 14th Amendment, under the collective entity rule, and was naturalized as a corporate citizen of the United States. This did not destroy the natural person, but simply created a second separate legal entity, a legal fiction, artificial person. This legal fiction was created as an agent (U.S. citizen) of the corporate U.S. government to engage in commerce and collect revenue for the governments, federal, state, and local. You contracted to represent this artificial perosn, thereby waiving your inalienable rights.

A sovereign flesh and blood person is an American Citizen.

A corporate U.S. citizen is an artificial person and is a government agent/employee.

WHICH ONE ARE YOU?"
There has been much work posted on this subject.
*


----------



## James Everett

Rogue 9 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Slave Power had been wielding the federal government like a club for nearly eighty years. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes and then the Republicans took over, the South  did not want to submit, much like our founders did not want to submit, and the war started. Do you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There wasn't anything to submit _to._ Lincoln's government hadn't even done anything, up to and including taken office!
> 
> Anyway, while I'm on the subject of Washington and his views on citizenship, I might as well go into it further.  He had quite a bit to say about the nature of the Union, after all.
> 
> First, this letter to Reverend William Gordon.
> 
> _It now rests with the Confederated Powers, by the line of conduct they mean to adopt, to make this Country great, happy, and respectable; or to sink it into littleness; worse perhaps, into Anarchy and Confusion; for certain I am, that *unless adequate Powers are given to Congress for the general purposes of the Federal Union that we shall soon moulder into dust and become contemptable in the Eyes of Europe, if we are not made the sport of their Politicks; to suppose that the general concern of this Country can be directed by thirteen heads, or one head without competent powers, is a solecism*, the bad effects of which every Man who has had the practical knowledge to judge from, that I have, is fully convinced of; tho' none perhaps has felt them in so forcible, and distressing a degree. The People at large, and at a distance from the theatre of Action, who only know that the Machine was kept in motion, and that they are at last arrived at the first object of their Wishes are satisfied with the event, without investigating the causes of the slow progress to it, or of the Expences which have accrued and which they now seem unwilling to pay; great part of which has arisen from that want of energy in the Federal Constitution which I am complaining of, and which I wish to see given to it by a Convention of the People, instead of hearing it remarked that as we have worked through an arduous Contest with the Powers Congress already have (but which, by the by, have been gradually diminishing) why should they be invested with more?
> 
> To say nothing of the invisible workings of Providence, which has conducted us through difficulties where no human foresight could point the way; it will appear evident to a close Examiner, that there has been a concatenation of causes to produce this Event; which in all probability at no time, or under any Circumstances, will combine again. We deceive ourselves therefore by this mode of reasoning, and what would be much worse, we may bring ruin upon ourselves by attempting to carry it into practice.
> 
> *We are known by no other character among Nations than as the United States; Massachusetts or Virginia is no better defined, nor any more thought of by Foreign Powers than the County of Worcester in Massachusetts is by Virginia, or Glouster County in Virginia is by Massachusetts (respectable as they are); and yet these Counties, with as much propriety might oppose themselves to the Laws of the State in wch. they are, as an Individual State can oppose itself to the Federal Government, by which it is, or ought to be bound.* Each of these Counties has, no doubt, its local polity and Interests. these should be attended to, and brought before their respective legislatures with all the force their importance merits; *but when they come in contact with the general Interest of the State; when superior considerations preponderate in favor of the whole, their Voices should be heard no more; so should it be with individual States when compared to the Union. Otherwise I think it may properly be asked for what purpose do we farcically pretend to be United? *Why do Congress spend Months together in deliberating upon, debating, and digesting plans, which are made as palatable, and as wholesome to the Constitution of this Country as the nature of things will admit of, when some States will pay no attention to them, and others regard them but partially; by which means all those evils which proceed from delay, are felt by the whole; while the compliant States are not only suffering by these neglects, but in many instances are injured most capitally by their own exertions; which are wasted for want of the United effort. A hundd. thousand men coming one after another cannot move a Ton weight; but the united strength of 50 would transport it with ease. so has it been with great part of the expence which has been incurred this War. *In a Word, I think the blood and treasure which has been spent in it has been lavished to little purpose, unless we can be better Cemented; and that is not to be effected while so little attention is paid to the recommendations of the Sovereign Power.*
> 
> To me it would seem not more absurd, to hear a traveller, who was setting out on a long journey, declare he would take no Money in his pocket to defray the Expences of it but rather depend upon chance and charity lest he should misapply it, than are the expressions of so much fear of the powers and means of Congress. For Heavens sake who are Congress? are they not the Creatures of the People, amenable to them for their Conduct, and dependant from day to day on their breath? Where then can be the danger of giving them such Powers as are adequate to the great ends of Government, and to all the general purposes of the Confederation *(I repeat the word genl, because I am no advocate for their having to do with the particular policy of any State, further than it concerns the Union at large).* What may be the consequences if they have not these Powers I am at no loss to guess; and deprecate the worst; for sure I am, we shall, in a little time, become as contemptable in the great Scale of Politicks as we now have it in our power to be respectable; and that, *when the band of Union gets once broken, every thing ruinous to our future prospects is to be apprehended*; the best that can come of it, in my humble opinion is, that we shall sink into obscurity, unless our Civil broils should keep us in remembrance and fill the page of history with the direful consequences of them._
> 
> I omit quote tags because at this point I suspect that certain people in the thread aren't actually opening them to read the contents.  At any rate, he could hardly be more clear; the states have no more right to nullify or contravene the acts of the federal government than counties do to override their states (and in point of fact, state preemption of local laws on certain subjects has become very popular of late), and the federal government is, quote, "the Sovereign Power."
> 
> Or how about this 1787 letter to David Stuart, accompanying copies of the Federalist Papers and urging their distribution:
> 
> _I have seen no publication yet that ought, in my judgment, to shake the proposed Constitution in the mind of an impartial and candid public. In fine, I have hardly seen one that is not addressed to the passions of the people, and obviously calculated to alarm their fears. Every attempt to amend the Constitution at this time is in my opinion idle and vain. *If there are characters, who prefer disunion, or separate confederacies, to the general government, which is offered to them, their opposition may, for aught I know, proceed from principle; but as nothing, according to my conception of the matter, is more to be deprecated than a disunion of these distinct confederacies, as far as my voice can go it shall be offered in favor of the latter.* That there are some writers, and others perhaps who may not have written, that wish to see this Union divided into several confederacies, is pretty evident. As an antidote to these opinions, and in order to investigate the ground of objections to the Constitution which is submitted, the Federalist, under the signature of PUBLIUS, is written. The numbers which have been published, I send you. If there is a printer in Richmond who is really well disposed to support the new Constitution, he would do well to give them a place in his paper. They are, I think I may venture to say, written by able men; and before they are finished will, or I am mistaken, place matters in a true point of light. Although I am acquainted with the writers, who have a hand in this work, I am not at liberty to mention names, nor would I have it known that they are sent by me to you for promulgation._
> 
> Again, pretty clear:  The United States are exactly that.
> 
> Or how about this letter to John Jay in 1786:
> 
> _Your sentiments, that our affairs are drawing rapidly to a crisis, accord with my own. What the event will be, is also beyond the reach of my foresight. We have errors to correct; we have probably had too good an opinion of human nature in forming our confederation. Experience has taught us, that men will not adopt and carry into execution measures the best calculated for their own good, without the intervention of a coercive power. *I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation without having lodged some where a power, which will pervade the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the State Governments extends over the several States.*
> 
> To be fearful of investing Congress, constituted as that body is, with ample authorities for national purposes, appears to me the very climax of popular absurdity and madness. Could Congress exert them for the detriment of the public, without injuring themselves in an equal or greater proportion? Are not their interests inseparably connected with those of their constituents? By the rotation of appointment, must they not mingle frequently with the mass of Citizens? Is it not rather to be apprehended, if they were possessed of the powers before described, that the individual members would be induced to use them, on many occasions, very timidly and inefficaciously for fear of losing their popularity and future election? We must take human nature as we find it: perfection falls not to the share of mortals. Many are of opinion that Congress have too frequently made use of the suppliant humble tone of requisition, in applications to the States, when they had a right to assert their imperial dignity and command obedience. Be that as it may, requisitions are a perfect nihility where thirteen sovereign independent disunited States are in the habit of discussing and refusing compliance with them at their option. Requisitions are actually little better than a jest and a bye word throughout the land. *If you tell the Legislatures they have violated the Treaty of Peace, and invaded the prerogatives of the confederacy, they will laugh in your face.* What then is to be done? Things cannot go on in the same train forever. It is much to be feared, as you observe, that the better kind of people, being disgusted with the circumstances, will have their minds prepared for any revolution whatever. We are apt to run from one extreme into another. To anticipate and prevent disastrous contingencies, would be the part of wisdom and patriotism.
> 
> What astonishing changes a few years are capable of producing. I am told that even respectable characters speak of a monarchical form of Government without horror. From thinking proceeds speaking, thence to acting is often but a single step. But how irrevocable and tremendous! what a triumph for our enemies to verify their predictions! what a triumph for the advocates of despotism to find that we are incapable of governing ourselves, and that systems founded on the basis of equal liberty are merely ideal and fallacious! Would to God that wise measures may be taken in time to avert the consequences we have but too much reason to apprehend._
> 
> The "Treaty of Peace" he referred to is the 1783 Treaty of Paris which ended the Revolutionary War; though the terms of the treaty forbid retaliation against British loyalists and demand honoring of debts on both sides, several states, notably Virginia, confiscated property from them as a matter of course and passed laws forbidding the payment of British debts.  The inability of the Articles Congress to enforce the terms of the treaty was grounds for a lot of foreign tension in the years immediately after the war.
Click to expand...




Rogue 9 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Slave Power had been wielding the federal government like a club for nearly eighty years. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes and then the Republicans took over, the South  did not want to submit, much like our founders did not want to submit, and the war started. Do you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There wasn't anything to submit _to._ Lincoln's government hadn't even done anything, up to and including taken office!
> 
> Anyway, while I'm on the subject of Washington and his views on citizenship, I might as well go into it further.  He had quite a bit to say about the nature of the Union, after all.
> 
> First, this letter to Reverend William Gordon.
> 
> _It now rests with the Confederated Powers, by the line of conduct they mean to adopt, to make this Country great, happy, and respectable; or to sink it into littleness; worse perhaps, into Anarchy and Confusion; for certain I am, that *unless adequate Powers are given to Congress for the general purposes of the Federal Union that we shall soon moulder into dust and become contemptable in the Eyes of Europe, if we are not made the sport of their Politicks; to suppose that the general concern of this Country can be directed by thirteen heads, or one head without competent powers, is a solecism*, the bad effects of which every Man who has had the practical knowledge to judge from, that I have, is fully convinced of; tho' none perhaps has felt them in so forcible, and distressing a degree. The People at large, and at a distance from the theatre of Action, who only know that the Machine was kept in motion, and that they are at last arrived at the first object of their Wishes are satisfied with the event, without investigating the causes of the slow progress to it, or of the Expences which have accrued and which they now seem unwilling to pay; great part of which has arisen from that want of energy in the Federal Constitution which I am complaining of, and which I wish to see given to it by a Convention of the People, instead of hearing it remarked that as we have worked through an arduous Contest with the Powers Congress already have (but which, by the by, have been gradually diminishing) why should they be invested with more?
> 
> To say nothing of the invisible workings of Providence, which has conducted us through difficulties where no human foresight could point the way; it will appear evident to a close Examiner, that there has been a concatenation of causes to produce this Event; which in all probability at no time, or under any Circumstances, will combine again. We deceive ourselves therefore by this mode of reasoning, and what would be much worse, we may bring ruin upon ourselves by attempting to carry it into practice.
> 
> *We are known by no other character among Nations than as the United States; Massachusetts or Virginia is no better defined, nor any more thought of by Foreign Powers than the County of Worcester in Massachusetts is by Virginia, or Glouster County in Virginia is by Massachusetts (respectable as they are); and yet these Counties, with as much propriety might oppose themselves to the Laws of the State in wch. they are, as an Individual State can oppose itself to the Federal Government, by which it is, or ought to be bound.* Each of these Counties has, no doubt, its local polity and Interests. these should be attended to, and brought before their respective legislatures with all the force their importance merits; *but when they come in contact with the general Interest of the State; when superior considerations preponderate in favor of the whole, their Voices should be heard no more; so should it be with individual States when compared to the Union. Otherwise I think it may properly be asked for what purpose do we farcically pretend to be United? *Why do Congress spend Months together in deliberating upon, debating, and digesting plans, which are made as palatable, and as wholesome to the Constitution of this Country as the nature of things will admit of, when some States will pay no attention to them, and others regard them but partially; by which means all those evils which proceed from delay, are felt by the whole; while the compliant States are not only suffering by these neglects, but in many instances are injured most capitally by their own exertions; which are wasted for want of the United effort. A hundd. thousand men coming one after another cannot move a Ton weight; but the united strength of 50 would transport it with ease. so has it been with great part of the expence which has been incurred this War. *In a Word, I think the blood and treasure which has been spent in it has been lavished to little purpose, unless we can be better Cemented; and that is not to be effected while so little attention is paid to the recommendations of the Sovereign Power.*
> 
> To me it would seem not more absurd, to hear a traveller, who was setting out on a long journey, declare he would take no Money in his pocket to defray the Expences of it but rather depend upon chance and charity lest he should misapply it, than are the expressions of so much fear of the powers and means of Congress. For Heavens sake who are Congress? are they not the Creatures of the People, amenable to them for their Conduct, and dependant from day to day on their breath? Where then can be the danger of giving them such Powers as are adequate to the great ends of Government, and to all the general purposes of the Confederation *(I repeat the word genl, because I am no advocate for their having to do with the particular policy of any State, further than it concerns the Union at large).* What may be the consequences if they have not these Powers I am at no loss to guess; and deprecate the worst; for sure I am, we shall, in a little time, become as contemptable in the great Scale of Politicks as we now have it in our power to be respectable; and that, *when the band of Union gets once broken, every thing ruinous to our future prospects is to be apprehended*; the best that can come of it, in my humble opinion is, that we shall sink into obscurity, unless our Civil broils should keep us in remembrance and fill the page of history with the direful consequences of them._
> 
> I omit quote tags because at this point I suspect that certain people in the thread aren't actually opening them to read the contents.  At any rate, he could hardly be more clear; the states have no more right to nullify or contravene the acts of the federal government than counties do to override their states (and in point of fact, state preemption of local laws on certain subjects has become very popular of late), and the federal government is, quote, "the Sovereign Power."
> 
> Or how about this 1787 letter to David Stuart, accompanying copies of the Federalist Papers and urging their distribution:
> 
> _I have seen no publication yet that ought, in my judgment, to shake the proposed Constitution in the mind of an impartial and candid public. In fine, I have hardly seen one that is not addressed to the passions of the people, and obviously calculated to alarm their fears. Every attempt to amend the Constitution at this time is in my opinion idle and vain. *If there are characters, who prefer disunion, or separate confederacies, to the general government, which is offered to them, their opposition may, for aught I know, proceed from principle; but as nothing, according to my conception of the matter, is more to be deprecated than a disunion of these distinct confederacies, as far as my voice can go it shall be offered in favor of the latter.* That there are some writers, and others perhaps who may not have written, that wish to see this Union divided into several confederacies, is pretty evident. As an antidote to these opinions, and in order to investigate the ground of objections to the Constitution which is submitted, the Federalist, under the signature of PUBLIUS, is written. The numbers which have been published, I send you. If there is a printer in Richmond who is really well disposed to support the new Constitution, he would do well to give them a place in his paper. They are, I think I may venture to say, written by able men; and before they are finished will, or I am mistaken, place matters in a true point of light. Although I am acquainted with the writers, who have a hand in this work, I am not at liberty to mention names, nor would I have it known that they are sent by me to you for promulgation._
> 
> Again, pretty clear:  The United States are exactly that.
> 
> Or how about this letter to John Jay in 1786:
> 
> _Your sentiments, that our affairs are drawing rapidly to a crisis, accord with my own. What the event will be, is also beyond the reach of my foresight. We have errors to correct; we have probably had too good an opinion of human nature in forming our confederation. Experience has taught us, that men will not adopt and carry into execution measures the best calculated for their own good, without the intervention of a coercive power. *I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation without having lodged some where a power, which will pervade the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the State Governments extends over the several States.*
> 
> To be fearful of investing Congress, constituted as that body is, with ample authorities for national purposes, appears to me the very climax of popular absurdity and madness. Could Congress exert them for the detriment of the public, without injuring themselves in an equal or greater proportion? Are not their interests inseparably connected with those of their constituents? By the rotation of appointment, must they not mingle frequently with the mass of Citizens? Is it not rather to be apprehended, if they were possessed of the powers before described, that the individual members would be induced to use them, on many occasions, very timidly and inefficaciously for fear of losing their popularity and future election? We must take human nature as we find it: perfection falls not to the share of mortals. Many are of opinion that Congress have too frequently made use of the suppliant humble tone of requisition, in applications to the States, when they had a right to assert their imperial dignity and command obedience. Be that as it may, requisitions are a perfect nihility where thirteen sovereign independent disunited States are in the habit of discussing and refusing compliance with them at their option. Requisitions are actually little better than a jest and a bye word throughout the land. *If you tell the Legislatures they have violated the Treaty of Peace, and invaded the prerogatives of the confederacy, they will laugh in your face.* What then is to be done? Things cannot go on in the same train forever. It is much to be feared, as you observe, that the better kind of people, being disgusted with the circumstances, will have their minds prepared for any revolution whatever. We are apt to run from one extreme into another. To anticipate and prevent disastrous contingencies, would be the part of wisdom and patriotism.
> 
> What astonishing changes a few years are capable of producing. I am told that even respectable characters speak of a monarchical form of Government without horror. From thinking proceeds speaking, thence to acting is often but a single step. But how irrevocable and tremendous! what a triumph for our enemies to verify their predictions! what a triumph for the advocates of despotism to find that we are incapable of governing ourselves, and that systems founded on the basis of equal liberty are merely ideal and fallacious! Would to God that wise measures may be taken in time to avert the consequences we have but too much reason to apprehend._
> 
> The "Treaty of Peace" he referred to is the 1783 Treaty of Paris which ended the Revolutionary War; though the terms of the treaty forbid retaliation against British loyalists and demand honoring of debts on both sides, several states, notably Virginia, confiscated property from them as a matter of course and passed laws forbidding the payment of British debts.  The inability of the Articles Congress to enforce the terms of the treaty was grounds for a lot of foreign tension in the years immediately after the war.
Click to expand...

Thus was the concern of the Nationalists such as George Washington .....
"_ *unless adequate Powers are given to Congress for the general purposes of the Federal Union that we shall soon moulder into dust and become contemptable in the Eyes of Europe, if we are not made the sport of their Politicks;"
Oh and do I look FAT in this dress dear?
His Concern was what Europe may think, rather than the protection of Liberty.
Here is a letter from Alexander Hamilton to George Washington, and here we must remember that Hamilton advocated a Monarchy for the States.....
July 3 1787………
“Dear Sir,
In my passage through the Jerseys, and since my arrival here, I have taken particular pains to discover the public sentiment; and I am more and more convinced that this is the critical opportunity for establishing the prosperity of this country on a solid foundation”

Now let us remember that Alexander Hamilton, on June 17 1787 proclaimed the British government…….

“The best in the world“

…..Continuing on Mr. Hamilton’s letter to Mr. Washington July 3 1787……….

“The people begin to be convinced that “their excellent form of Government,” as they have been used to call it, will not answer their purpose, and that they must substitute something not very remote from that which they have lately quitted.

These appearances, though they will not warrant a conclusion that the people are yet ripe for such a plan as I advocate, yet serve to prove that there is no reason to despair of their adopting one equally energetic, if the Convention should think proper to propose it”

What had they “lately quitted”?  A Monarchy, a strong National government.
What plan did Hamilton advocate? answer... A Monarchy. 

On the one hand, we have those founders who shared Mr. Hamilton’s view abandoning the Confederacy in favor of a National government…………

“ Not very remote from that which they have lately quitted “

Rogue9 No ones opinion is relevant to what the actual Constitution States, as none of these men, any more than you or I were the final arbiter, that actually rested with the States, because ultimately Article XIII of The Articles of Confederation had to be followed as it was THE LAW....
" nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."

*_


----------



## James Everett

Rogue 9 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The inability of the Articles Congress to enforce the terms of the treaty was grounds for a lot of foreign tension in the years immediately after the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you have any idea what your subject is?? This is supposed to be about Civil War causes. Do you have any idea what caused the civil war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I do know what my subject is.  The point is to establish that the men who wrote the Constitution (George Washington chaired the Constitutional Convention the year after writing that) did not intend for the Union to be broken up.  As you may or may not have noticed, the subject of the thread kind of got changed back on page 3.
Click to expand...

What Washington may have intended, differs from what the States had enumerated in the Constitution before they would ratify it, that being the tenth amendment and the protection of their SOVEREIGN POWERS, one of which was to exit the union if they no longer felt it served their best interest.


----------



## James Everett

paperview said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a big WHAT IF: What if The Union had let the  south secede from the Union? How many lives would that have spared? And, slavery would have ended in 20 or 30 years because morally it was wrong, but because of other causes, cheap labor and machines do it better. I could live  with the Confederation of the south.
> 
> 
> 
> You could live if you were one of the four million slaves living in the total population of the 9 million south?  Nearly half the population?
> 
> For how long?
> 
> Some states were *majority* slave population.  It wasn't dying out.
> 
> *The entire black race  -- including free blacks* -- *were not even citizens* when the Civil War started, and you "could live with that?"
Click to expand...

Oh paperview hop down of your moral stump! 
You seem to be one who was appalled by slavery, yet seem fine with YOUR U.S. Governments extermination of the Native American Indian.


----------



## James Everett

paperview said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a big WHAT IF: What if The Union had let the  south secede from the Union? How many lives would that have spared? And, slavery would have ended in 20 or 30 years because morally it was wrong, but because of other causes, cheap labor and machines do it better. I could live  with the Confederation of the south.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> probably about 800,000 lives would have been spared at a time when population was only 30 million as I recall. Not to mention blacks would have been better off too when you consider how many  died from disease and starvation after war and how war hardened attitudes against them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, fuck the 4 million who were property - treated as property to be bought as sold as farm animals, eh?
> 
> Put on auction blocks and sold  and had their families torn apart, raped by their slavemasters, who the fuck cared for them anyhow, eh?
Click to expand...

Again paperview "fuck" the Native American Indian, rape exterminate (KILL THEM ALL) right?  Again hop down of your moral stump, YOU DONT BELONG THERE!!!!!


----------



## James Everett

paperview said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> For how long?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> longer that you could live with Civil War and its aftermath
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank your lucky stars Lincoln kept the Union together.
> 
> You wouldn't be here today.
> 
> Nor would the United States as you know it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, be happy that Lincoln destroyed the union of States by consolidating them into a single national government as a single Soverign, be thankful for the perpetual warmongering and hegemony, be thankful for the trillions in debt that can never be paid. Be thankful for the fiat currency, and the fact that you do not hold alodial title to your property.


----------



## James Everett

Rogue 9 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The inability of the Articles Congress to enforce the terms of the treaty was grounds for a lot of foreign tension in the years immediately after the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you have any idea what your subject is?? This is supposed to be about Civil War causes. Do you have any idea what caused the civil war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I do know what my subject is.  The point is to establish that the men who wrote the Constitution (George Washington chaired the Constitutional Convention the year after writing that) did not intend for the Union to be broken up.  As you may or may not have noticed, the subject of the thread kind of got changed back on page 3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and so is the subject as the title implies: causes of civil war? Do you know the causes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.  Read the OP, I assure you it's quite thorough, though not as thorough as it could be because I ran into the character limit in the place it was originally posted.
Click to expand...

The op is a piece of crap, it makes incorrect assertions, and never addresses the legality of secession.


----------



## Rogue 9

James Everett said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> James, you never did answer the question.
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Articles government was working so well, *why was a convention called to alter it?*
> 
> 
> 
> The answer to that question is instructive, but I'm curious to see your opinion.
> 
> Also, to address this:
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> One last thing...
> Rogue9, You state that YOUR passport shows you as a U.S. citizen; this is because YOU submitted to the fictional jurisdiction established under UCC, I would not expect any ignorant such as you who has clearly shewn himself to have no understanding of his own U.S. CONstitution to understand how to obtain a passport wherein you are a flesh and blood American citizen. I have witnessed this having been accomplished by the Late Douglas McPherson, who had more intelligence in his little toe, than you have in your feeble brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Charming.  Tell me, did George Washington also submit to "the fictional jurisdiction established under UCC," whatever UCC is supposed to mean in this context?  From his Last Will and Testament:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> George Washington said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I, George Washington of Mount Vernon, *a citizen of the United States and lately President of the same*, do make, ordain and declare this instrument, which is written with my own hand and every page thereof subscribed with my name, to be my last Will and Testament, revoking all others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That isn't exactly new language, sir.
> 
> I apologize for letting this get so out of hand; I was occupied all day and into the evening on Wednesday and I'm only just now catching up with the several pages of posts that appeared in the interval.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rogue9,
> I appologize for the delay, but some of us do actually work for a living. Also allow me first to ask you this question.....
> Are you, or which one of you idiots is Woodrow Major????
> As to your first question.....
> "If the Articles government was working so well, *why was a convention called to alter it?"
> There was a split in the ideals of the Founders' one of which were the nationalists, these were those who quickly hijacked the title of federalists in order to con the people and gain favor and the upper hand, leaving the actual Federalists to be stuck with the label antifederalists.
> I somehow doubt that you actually know the difference between the two systems.
> These Nationalists wanted a nation of power, grandeur and splendor to rival that of King George's Great Britain.
> The real federalists who were falsely labeled anti federalists were content with a simple Confederacy between the States to protect the liberty of the people.
> Patrick HEnry explained it well on June 5th 1788.....
> "Those Nations who have gone in search of power, grandeur and splendor, have all fallen a sacrifice, and been the victims of their own folly: While they acquired those visionary blessings, THEY LOST THEIR FREEDOM.
> The Articles were working fine, it all depends on what goal you are trying to achieve, Liberty: or POWER, GRANDEUR, AND SPLENDOR ?
> As we can clearly see with 20/20 hindsight, YOUR U.S. has become just what Patrick Henry warned...A nation of POWER Grandeur and Splendor, all at the sacrifice of our Liberty and Privacy. Edward Snowden recently exposed mush of this.
> You no longer have a union of States, what you now have is a wholly national system run by a two party duopoly which is owned by the wealthy elite, and is built on hegemony, war and a debt that will never be paid, and will ultimately cause its collapse*
Click to expand...

Wrong.  The Articles of Confederation weren't working at all; the states were individually violating the Treaty of Paris, refusing to pay their debts, and not working in concert on foreign affairs; the Congress was incapable of protecting the borders or the frontier, the national currency was worthless, commerce between the states was in shambles, Rhode Island was charging tolls on the post road, Connecticut opened its ports to British shipping while the other states enforced an embargo in order to profit, rebellions threatened the state governments and Congress could do next to nothing to help, the army went unpaid, and in general there was near-total disarray in the country.  The Articles mandated that the Union be perpetual, and to form a "more perfect Union" than that governed by the Articles does not imply intent to change this.  An examination of the debates of the Pennsylvania legislature on ratification, just to pick one of many examples, shows this quite clearly (and, on the bargain, shows that the legislators who approved calling a convention rushed to act without the Continental Congress on the explicit premise that the Constitution was a replacement of the Articles, not an alteration of them, and the people could proceed without Congress - which was overwhelmingly in favor in any case).
*


James Everett said:



			George Washington stated that he was a citizen of the U.S., NOT A U.S. Citizen.....Do you see the difference?????
I will copy and paste here the difference between a U.S. Citizen, and an American citizen.....
"There appears to be general misunderstanding by people in general as to the difference between a natural person and an artificial person. This document will explain that difference.

John Joseph Smith, is a natural, flesh and blood, person, created by God.

JOHN JOSEPH SMITH, is a U.S. corporate artificial person, U.S. citizen, created by the government.

In basic English grammar, a name spelled in upper and lower case, such as John Joseph Smith, is indicative of a flesh and blood man, a natural person. 

Person.In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers. Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed.

On the other hand, a name spelled in all caps, such as JOHN JOSEPH SMITH, is indicative of an artificial person.

Artificial persons.  Persons created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government, as distinguished from natural persons.Corporations are examples of artificial persons. Black's 6th Ed.

U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873) "The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress."

The "United States" is defined in Title 28 USC Sec. 3002(15)(A) as a "Federal corporation".

It is also a municipal corporation.

Municipal.In narrower, more common, sense, it means pertaining to a local governmental unit, commonly, a city or town or other governmental unit. In its broader sense, it means pertaining to the public or governmental affairs of a state or nation or of a people.Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed.

So the federal corporation United States, that pertains to the public affairs of a people, would be a municipal corporation.The federal government pertains to the affairs of its sovereign people.

Municipal corporation. A body corporate consisting of the inhabitants of a designated area created by the legislature with or without the consent of such inhabitants for governmental purposes . . .A municipal corporation has a dual character, the one public and the other private, and exercises corresponding twofold functions and duties -- one class consisting of those acts performed by it in the exercise of delegated sovereign powers for benefit of people generally, as arm of the state, enforcing general laws made in pursuance of general policy of the state, and the other consisting of acts done in exercise of power of the municipal corporation for its own benefit, or for the benefit of its citizens alone, or citizens of the municipal corporation and its immediate locality.  Black's 6th Ed.

A municipal corporation is an artificial person, as shown above, and consists of the general inhabitants called citizens, and these artificial persons (citizens) were created by the legislature, not by God. A corporation can be a citizen itself, and that corporation can have its own citizens. A corporation also has it's own officers. When a corporation is dissolved, then the officers of that corporation no longer exist. A government has it's own citizens and employees. When that government is dissolved, then those citizens also cease to exist, since both officers and citizens of a corporation are both artificial persons.

Corporate citizen. Corporate status in the state of incorporation . . . Black's 6th Ed.

A municipal corporation in its broader sense, such as the United States, consists of the inhabitants (U.S. citizens) of a designated area (federal United States). And a corporation can through its legislative branch create artificial persons, who are termed citizens of the municipal corporation. Can an artificial person create a flesh and blood natural man? Can the creator create a being superior to itself? Or can an artificial person only create (make) another artificial person?

I claim that when the municipal corporation United States, creates a citizen through legislative act, that citizen is then a corporate U.S. citizen. That corporate citizen's name is spelled in all capital letters, to indicate that it is an artificial person, as distinguished from a natural person whose name is spelled in upper and lower case letters. That corporate citizen is subject to its creator, the U.S. government, and is subject to its exclusive jurisdiction.

Constitution of the United States of America
14th Amendment. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any States deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

A citizen of the United States is a corporate citizen, with corporate status, created by the corporation called United States, and is acting as their agent for the purpose of collecting revenue. This citizen has only privileges and immunities under the 14th Amendment. A natural person has inalienable rights, secured by the Constitution. A person with corporate status, would have corporate income.



COLLECTIVE ENTITY RULE


Brasswell v. United States 487 U.S. 99 (1988) This doctrine - known as the collective entity rule- has a lengthy and distinguished pedigree.

What is a "collective entity"? A collective entity is simply a corporate entity. Since the status of U.S. citizen can be created by naturalization let's see what naturalization is, and determine if a U.S. citizen is part of a collective entity.

Naturalization.The process by which a person acquires nationality after birth and becomes entitled to the privileges of U.S. citizenship. In the United States collective naturalization occurs when designated groups are made citizens by treaty (as Louisiana Purchase), or by a law of Congress (as in annexation of Texas and Hawaii). Black's 6th Ed.

Person.Scope and delineation of term necessary for determining to whom Fourteenth Amendment of Constitution affords protections since this Amendment expressly applies to "person".

Let's review the definition of artificial person.

Artificial persons.  Persons created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government, as distinguished from natural persons. Corporations are examples of artificial persons. Black's 6th Ed.

The 14th Amendment applies to "persons", and person in legal parlance means an artificial person, in distinction from a natural person. "Collective" "naturalization occurs when designated groups" (inhabitants) "are made (created) citizens by a law of Congress".  These artificial persons were "created and devised by human laws (14th Amendment U.S. citizen) for the (revenue) purposes of society and government", and have their names spelled in all capital letters. These designated groups are "made" or created corporate citizens/employees and are distinguished from natural persons.

A natural person, with his named spelled in upper and lower case letters, has inalienable rights, and is NOT a corporate U.S. citizen. An artificial person, and corporate citizen of the United States, has his name spelled in all capital letters. A natural person cannot be an artificial person at the same time.

The theme of the collective entity rule states:
Brasswell v. United States 487 U.S. 99 (1988) quoting, United States v. White 322 U.S. 694 (1944) But individuals, when acting as representatives of a collective group, cannot be said to be exercising their personal rights and duties, nor be entitled to their purely personal privileges. Rather they assume the rights, duties and privileges of the artificial entity or association of which they are agentsor officers and they are bound by its obligations.

Under the collective entity rule, if John Joseph Smith contracted to be a representative or agent of the corporate citizen JOHN JOSEPH SMITH, then he would not be able to exercise his inalienable rights, which are his personal rights. John Joseph Smith (American Citizen) is contracting to be the agent of JOHN JOSEPH SMITH (U.S. citizen), thereby waiving his inalienable rights.

After the birth of John Joseph Smith, a new artificial person was created (JOHN JOSEPH SMITH), by the 14th Amendment, under the collective entity rule, and was naturalized as a corporate citizen of the United States. This did not destroy the natural person, but simply created a second separate legal entity, a legal fiction, artificial person. This legal fiction was created as an agent (U.S. citizen) of the corporate U.S. government to engage in commerce and collect revenue for the governments, federal, state, and local. You contracted to represent this artificial perosn, thereby waiving your inalienable rights.

A sovereign flesh and blood person is an American Citizen.

A corporate U.S. citizen is an artificial person and is a government agent/employee.

WHICH ONE ARE YOU?"
There has been much work posted on this subject.

Click to expand...

*That is pseudolegal gobbledygook nonsense.  Incidentally, my passport also says I'm a citizen of the United States, not a U.S. citizen, the exact wording of Washington that you claim is so different.  So much for that theory.


James Everett said:


> The op is a piece of crap, it makes incorrect assertions, and never addresses the legality of secession.


What assertions are incorrect, sir?  Also, it is not intended to address the legality of secession as its primary subject, but rather the motives behind it, which are quite clear and not in serious dispute by anyone who can actually read the declarations of the secession conventions.


----------



## Rogue 9

Rotagilla , while we're at it I'd like to address one assertion you've made repeatedly:  That this is the result of public school education.  That is utter nonsense as well; go crack a high school history textbook sometime and you will find that they are one and all wishy-washy about why the Confederacy seceded, and they will never present the particular primary source documents that I've cited in the OP and elsewhere in the thread.  Textbook publishers need to sell books, and the school boards of the Deep South, particularly Texas where book buying is centralized to the degree that the one state corners the market, will not buy textbooks that tell these truths.  No public school education would result in this alone; I've put in hundreds of hours researching primary sources from the period on my own and they all point to the same conclusion.


----------



## Ravi

Rotagilla said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was always unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Post the article and section/paragraph, then.
> Your opinion doesn't matter here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> America lost what? The "right" to enslave black people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> america lost when the government decided to invade, murder/rape/rob civilians (fellow americans, mind you), steal their property, burn their homes and businesses and wreck their infrastructure because they want to legally and peacefully withdraw from the _union_.
> 
> Why exactly is it so important to you that people trying to exercise their legal rights to withdraw and form their own government should be violently subdued and brought under domination?
> 
> Was king george correct to invade the colonies and murder civilians because the colonists wanted to withdraw from england?
> 
> Apparently, using your logic, if your wife asks for a divorce, you believe it's ok to beat her for it.
> 
> We send troops around the world to help other nations form their own democratic governments...but you think it's ok to murder fellow citizens who wanted the same things...Hypocrisy much?
> 
> Regardless..this country is finished anyway...and the next time a group of states decide to withdraw (and it's coming...probably in the west. Most Southern states would likely join them, too)....there's nothing your gvmt will be able to do about it...so laugh it up, sweetie...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh..you don't want to talk about the war of northern aggression any more...now you want to quote the preamble....
> Collapse, partitioning and reconstruction, ravi.
> Corrections will be made.
Click to expand...

You asked a question and didn't like the answer. The South got what it deserved.


----------



## Ravi

James Everett said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Need more?
> 
> *The first shots were fired in January of 1861. *
> 
> Buchanan was President and he was trying to resupply Sumter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to enlarge
> 
> The South fired upon the Union Steamship Star of the West
> 
> They took another ship and seized it: "The Marion."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then converted her to a Man of War ship.
> *THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." ; SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR. *
> 
> Star of the West
> 
> Note the date on the Harpers Weekly newspaper:* January, 1861*, linked above.
> *THE FIRST OF THE WAR. *
> 
> "WE publish herewith pictures of the United States  steam-sloop Brooklyn, and of the steamship Star of the West, and of the steamship Marion, which three vessels figured so prominently in the movements of last week; and on page 37 we give a large plan of  Charleston harbor, showing the forts, etc., together with a view of  Fort Johnson. These pictures will enable our readers to realize what is going on in this most memorable contest of the present age.
> 
> On Wednesday morning, January 9, 1861, the
> 
> *first shots were fired At daybreak on that morning at the steamship Star of the West, with 250 United States troops on board, attempted to enter the harbor of Charleston for the purpose of communicating with  Fort Sumter*
> 
> The people of Charleston had been warned of her coming and of her errand by telegraph. They determined to prevent her reaching  Fort Sumter. *Accordingly, as soon as she came within range, batteries on Morris Island and at Fort Moultrie opened on her*. The first shot was fired across her bows ;
> 
> whereupon she increased her speed, and hoisted the  stars and stripes. Other shots were then fired in rapid succession from Morris Island, two or more of which hulled the steamer, and compelled her to put about and go to sea.
> 
> The accompanying picture shows the Star of the West as she entered  Charleston harbor; the plan will explain the situation of the forts, and the position of the steamer when she was fired upon. The channel through which she passed runs close by Morris Island for some distance.
> Fort Sumter made no demonstration, except at the port-holes, where guns were run out bearing on Morris Island."
> 
> 
> They did this before Lincoln even set foot in the office. Before they had even all officially Seceded. * An ACT OF WAR. *
> *
> Seizing government property of forts and arsenals all across the South is also an Act of War. *
> 
> 
> 
> Paperview, you asked.... "Need more?"
> Yes, in fact we need you to post the answer to the only relevant issue. Please cite the law that states that secession is an illegal act. Everything else is irrelevant because even if all that you post is an act of war, then the Southern Confederate States were no longer part of the U.S. Hence the U.S. Cannot constitutionally force States to become a member State in the union. Hence we are indeed illegally occupied by the U.S. Which is called tyranny just as it was under the former Soviet Union. Please cite that law!!!!!!
Click to expand...

It doesn't really matter. The South lost, wether as a conquered foreign nation or an illegally seceding group of states.


----------



## James Everett

Rogue 9 said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> James, you never did answer the question.
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Articles government was working so well, *why was a convention called to alter it?*
> 
> 
> 
> The answer to that question is instructive, but I'm curious to see your opinion.
> 
> Also, to address this:
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> One last thing...
> Rogue9, You state that YOUR passport shows you as a U.S. citizen; this is because YOU submitted to the fictional jurisdiction established under UCC, I would not expect any ignorant such as you who has clearly shewn himself to have no understanding of his own U.S. CONstitution to understand how to obtain a passport wherein you are a flesh and blood American citizen. I have witnessed this having been accomplished by the Late Douglas McPherson, who had more intelligence in his little toe, than you have in your feeble brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Charming.  Tell me, did George Washington also submit to "the fictional jurisdiction established under UCC," whatever UCC is supposed to mean in this context?  From his Last Will and Testament:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> George Washington said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I, George Washington of Mount Vernon, *a citizen of the United States and lately President of the same*, do make, ordain and declare this instrument, which is written with my own hand and every page thereof subscribed with my name, to be my last Will and Testament, revoking all others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That isn't exactly new language, sir.
> 
> I apologize for letting this get so out of hand; I was occupied all day and into the evening on Wednesday and I'm only just now catching up with the several pages of posts that appeared in the interval.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rogue9,
> I appologize for the delay, but some of us do actually work for a living. Also allow me first to ask you this question.....
> Are you, or which one of you idiots is Woodrow Major????
> As to your first question.....
> "If the Articles government was working so well, *why was a convention called to alter it?"
> There was a split in the ideals of the Founders' one of which were the nationalists, these were those who quickly hijacked the title of federalists in order to con the people and gain favor and the upper hand, leaving the actual Federalists to be stuck with the label antifederalists.
> I somehow doubt that you actually know the difference between the two systems.
> These Nationalists wanted a nation of power, grandeur and splendor to rival that of King George's Great Britain.
> The real federalists who were falsely labeled anti federalists were content with a simple Confederacy between the States to protect the liberty of the people.
> Patrick HEnry explained it well on June 5th 1788.....
> "Those Nations who have gone in search of power, grandeur and splendor, have all fallen a sacrifice, and been the victims of their own folly: While they acquired those visionary blessings, THEY LOST THEIR FREEDOM.
> The Articles were working fine, it all depends on what goal you are trying to achieve, Liberty: or POWER, GRANDEUR, AND SPLENDOR ?
> As we can clearly see with 20/20 hindsight, YOUR U.S. has become just what Patrick Henry warned...A nation of POWER Grandeur and Splendor, all at the sacrifice of our Liberty and Privacy. Edward Snowden recently exposed mush of this.
> You no longer have a union of States, what you now have is a wholly national system run by a two party duopoly which is owned by the wealthy elite, and is built on hegemony, war and a debt that will never be paid, and will ultimately cause its collapse*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  The Articles of Confederation weren't working at all; the states were individually violating the Treaty of Paris, refusing to pay their debts, and not working in concert on foreign affairs; the Congress was incapable of protecting the borders or the frontier, the national currency was worthless, commerce between the states was in shambles, Rhode Island was charging tolls on the post road, Connecticut opened its ports to British shipping while the other states enforced an embargo in order to profit, rebellions threatened the state governments and Congress could do next to nothing to help, the army went unpaid, and in general there was near-total disarray in the country.  The Articles mandated that the Union be perpetual, and to form a "more perfect Union" than that governed by the Articles does not imply intent to change this.  An examination of the debates of the Pennsylvania legislature on ratification, just to pick one of many examples, shows this quite clearly (and, on the bargain, shows that the legislators who approved calling a convention rushed to act without the Continental Congress on the explicit premise that the Constitution was a replacement of the Articles, not an alteration of them, and the people could proceed without Congress - which was overwhelmingly in favor in any case).
> *
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> George Washington stated that he was a citizen of the U.S., NOT A U.S. Citizen.....Do you see the difference?????
> I will copy and paste here the difference between a U.S. Citizen, and an American citizen.....
> "There appears to be general misunderstanding by people in general as to the difference between a natural person and an artificial person. This document will explain that difference.
> 
> John Joseph Smith, is a natural, flesh and blood, person, created by God.
> 
> JOHN JOSEPH SMITH, is a U.S. corporate artificial person, U.S. citizen, created by the government.
> 
> In basic English grammar, a name spelled in upper and lower case, such as John Joseph Smith, is indicative of a flesh and blood man, a natural person.
> 
> Person.In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers. Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed.
> 
> On the other hand, a name spelled in all caps, such as JOHN JOSEPH SMITH, is indicative of an artificial person.
> 
> Artificial persons.  Persons created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government, as distinguished from natural persons.Corporations are examples of artificial persons. Black's 6th Ed.
> 
> U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873) "The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress."
> 
> The "United States" is defined in Title 28 USC Sec. 3002(15)(A) as a "Federal corporation".
> 
> It is also a municipal corporation.
> 
> Municipal.In narrower, more common, sense, it means pertaining to a local governmental unit, commonly, a city or town or other governmental unit. In its broader sense, it means pertaining to the public or governmental affairs of a state or nation or of a people.Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed.
> 
> So the federal corporation United States, that pertains to the public affairs of a people, would be a municipal corporation.The federal government pertains to the affairs of its sovereign people.
> 
> Municipal corporation. A body corporate consisting of the inhabitants of a designated area created by the legislature with or without the consent of such inhabitants for governmental purposes . . .A municipal corporation has a dual character, the one public and the other private, and exercises corresponding twofold functions and duties -- one class consisting of those acts performed by it in the exercise of delegated sovereign powers for benefit of people generally, as arm of the state, enforcing general laws made in pursuance of general policy of the state, and the other consisting of acts done in exercise of power of the municipal corporation for its own benefit, or for the benefit of its citizens alone, or citizens of the municipal corporation and its immediate locality.  Black's 6th Ed.
> 
> A municipal corporation is an artificial person, as shown above, and consists of the general inhabitants called citizens, and these artificial persons (citizens) were created by the legislature, not by God. A corporation can be a citizen itself, and that corporation can have its own citizens. A corporation also has it's own officers. When a corporation is dissolved, then the officers of that corporation no longer exist. A government has it's own citizens and employees. When that government is dissolved, then those citizens also cease to exist, since both officers and citizens of a corporation are both artificial persons.
> 
> Corporate citizen. Corporate status in the state of incorporation . . . Black's 6th Ed.
> 
> A municipal corporation in its broader sense, such as the United States, consists of the inhabitants (U.S. citizens) of a designated area (federal United States). And a corporation can through its legislative branch create artificial persons, who are termed citizens of the municipal corporation. Can an artificial person create a flesh and blood natural man? Can the creator create a being superior to itself? Or can an artificial person only create (make) another artificial person?
> 
> I claim that when the municipal corporation United States, creates a citizen through legislative act, that citizen is then a corporate U.S. citizen. That corporate citizen's name is spelled in all capital letters, to indicate that it is an artificial person, as distinguished from a natural person whose name is spelled in upper and lower case letters. That corporate citizen is subject to its creator, the U.S. government, and is subject to its exclusive jurisdiction.
> 
> Constitution of the United States of America
> 14th Amendment. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any States deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
> 
> A citizen of the United States is a corporate citizen, with corporate status, created by the corporation called United States, and is acting as their agent for the purpose of collecting revenue. This citizen has only privileges and immunities under the 14th Amendment. A natural person has inalienable rights, secured by the Constitution. A person with corporate status, would have corporate income.
> 
> 
> 
> COLLECTIVE ENTITY RULE
> 
> 
> Brasswell v. United States 487 U.S. 99 (1988) This doctrine - known as the collective entity rule- has a lengthy and distinguished pedigree.
> 
> What is a "collective entity"? A collective entity is simply a corporate entity. Since the status of U.S. citizen can be created by naturalization let's see what naturalization is, and determine if a U.S. citizen is part of a collective entity.
> 
> Naturalization.The process by which a person acquires nationality after birth and becomes entitled to the privileges of U.S. citizenship. In the United States collective naturalization occurs when designated groups are made citizens by treaty (as Louisiana Purchase), or by a law of Congress (as in annexation of Texas and Hawaii). Black's 6th Ed.
> 
> Person.Scope and delineation of term necessary for determining to whom Fourteenth Amendment of Constitution affords protections since this Amendment expressly applies to "person".
> 
> Let's review the definition of artificial person.
> 
> Artificial persons.  Persons created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government, as distinguished from natural persons. Corporations are examples of artificial persons. Black's 6th Ed.
> 
> The 14th Amendment applies to "persons", and person in legal parlance means an artificial person, in distinction from a natural person. "Collective" "naturalization occurs when designated groups" (inhabitants) "are made (created) citizens by a law of Congress".  These artificial persons were "created and devised by human laws (14th Amendment U.S. citizen) for the (revenue) purposes of society and government", and have their names spelled in all capital letters. These designated groups are "made" or created corporate citizens/employees and are distinguished from natural persons.
> 
> A natural person, with his named spelled in upper and lower case letters, has inalienable rights, and is NOT a corporate U.S. citizen. An artificial person, and corporate citizen of the United States, has his name spelled in all capital letters. A natural person cannot be an artificial person at the same time.
> 
> The theme of the collective entity rule states:
> Brasswell v. United States 487 U.S. 99 (1988) quoting, United States v. White 322 U.S. 694 (1944) But individuals, when acting as representatives of a collective group, cannot be said to be exercising their personal rights and duties, nor be entitled to their purely personal privileges. Rather they assume the rights, duties and privileges of the artificial entity or association of which they are agentsor officers and they are bound by its obligations.
> 
> Under the collective entity rule, if John Joseph Smith contracted to be a representative or agent of the corporate citizen JOHN JOSEPH SMITH, then he would not be able to exercise his inalienable rights, which are his personal rights. John Joseph Smith (American Citizen) is contracting to be the agent of JOHN JOSEPH SMITH (U.S. citizen), thereby waiving his inalienable rights.
> 
> After the birth of John Joseph Smith, a new artificial person was created (JOHN JOSEPH SMITH), by the 14th Amendment, under the collective entity rule, and was naturalized as a corporate citizen of the United States. This did not destroy the natural person, but simply created a second separate legal entity, a legal fiction, artificial person. This legal fiction was created as an agent (U.S. citizen) of the corporate U.S. government to engage in commerce and collect revenue for the governments, federal, state, and local. You contracted to represent this artificial perosn, thereby waiving your inalienable rights.
> 
> A sovereign flesh and blood person is an American Citizen.
> 
> A corporate U.S. citizen is an artificial person and is a government agent/employee.
> 
> WHICH ONE ARE YOU?"
> There has been much work posted on this subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *That is pseudolegal gobbledygook nonsense.  Incidentally, my passport also says I'm a citizen of the United States, not a U.S. citizen, the exact wording of Washington that you claim is so different.  So much for that theory.
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> The op is a piece of crap, it makes incorrect assertions, and never addresses the legality of secession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What assertions are incorrect, sir?  Also, it is not intended to address the legality of secession as its primary subject, but rather the motives behind it, which are quite clear and not in serious dispute by anyone who can actually read the declarations of the secession conventions.
Click to expand...

Rogue9, You have stated....
*"An examination of the debates of the Pennsylvania legislature on ratification, just to pick one of many examples, shows this quite clearly (and, on the bargain, shows that the legislators who approved calling a convention rushed to act without the Continental Congress on the explicit premise that the Constitution was a replacement of the Articles, not an alteration of them, and the people could proceed without Congress - which was overwhelmingly in favor in any case)."*
And further you state....
*"The Articles mandated that the Union be perpetual, and to form a "more perfect Union" than that governed by the Articles does not imply intent to change this."*
You posted it herein..*."the Constitution was a replacement of the Articles, "
The union was to be perpetual under the Articles of Confederation, it was NOT a mandate that each State were to remain forcibly united, such would be contrary to the very definition of "union"
Union is ...
To Uni'te. i}. n.
1. To join; to concur ; to act
in concert.
When force is employed then union is replaced by tyranny.
When a man and a woman marry, that is a union. If the man or the woman no longer wish to remain united in matrimony, then that party may severe his/her ties to the other, via divorce or separation. To state otherwise would be to state that the union has become an obduction of the unwilling party. 
If the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution replaced the Articles, and then did NOT state within this new CONstitution that this new agreement was that this new union would be perpetual; Then what YOU believe to be implied is irrelevant. What is enumerated is what is relevant. 
We the people in order to form a more perfect union....
It is plain, in the first place, that this language, as an agreement, purports to be only what it at most really was, viz., a contract between the people then existing; and, of necessity, binding, as a contract, only upon those then existing. In the second place, the language neither expresses nor implies that they had any right or power, to bind their “posterity” to live under it. It does not say that their “posterity” will, shall, or must live under it. It only says, in effect, that their hopes and motives in adopting it were that it might prove useful to their posterity, as well as to themselves, by promoting their union, safety, tranquillity, liberty, etc.
Equally, it does not purport to be a perpetual union of States as did the Articles.
Next, as we see it was indeed a violation of the lawful authority of the Articles of Confederation, an act of rebellion to that lawful authority, in that as YOU have presented here thereof.....
The Congress without the consent of every State's legislature made claim that only nine would be needed for ratification. This was clearly a violation of Articles #XIII....
"nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."
The Articles were i place for only SIX years, and were amendable upon the confirmation of every States legislature. How many Congressional sessions were held? Nine? 
The Articles weren't working because as you stated.... *
"The Articles of Confederation weren't working at all; the states were individually violating the Treaty of Paris, refusing to pay their debts, and not working in concert on foreign affairs; the Congress was incapable of protecting the borders or the frontier, the national currency was worthless, commerce between the states was in shambles, Rhode Island was charging tolls on the post road, Connecticut opened its ports to British shipping while the other states enforced an embargo in order to profit, rebellions threatened the state governments and Congress could do next to nothing to help, the army went unpaid, and in general there was near-total disarray in the country."
*Yet in the ninety years of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, we see there were far more issues proving after as many as ninety years that the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution was not working, leading to the bloodiest war in history, and the destruction of federalism, the States,the union, our liberty, and a complete consolidation into a single national government system all as a result of a CONstitution that wasn't working which allowed Lincolns Rebellion to its lawful authority, creating yet another system of government without following the lawful authority in place at that time.
You now have a two party duopoly in control, rather than a union of States. There is MORE DISUNION THAN EVER, not between the States, which no longer exist outside a fictional realm, but between the two party factions that replaced the union of States One need only read the news, and view the so called Red v Blue factions, not to mention what we have going right here on this "message Board".  What we Southern Confederates advocate FOR OURSELVES and OUR STATES, is a return to the Articles, so that we may begin the amendment process, and restore the true federal system and Confederacy of States. We will be more than happy to allow your continuation under your own National system. 

*
Concering U.S. Citizen v American citizen, you state....
*"That is pseudolegal gobbledygook nonsense"
Yet again, this is your opinion backed by no evidence.
In the explaination that I presented, there is posted account of law, after law, to support what you call....
"pseudolegal gobbledygook nonsense"
This is simply more gratuitous assertion on your part.
At least you did try to support your claim that the Articles were not working, unfortunately your evidence defeated your own claim.

I apologize for my short response and topical rebuttal and explanation, but I must depart, for a long road trip this morning, and will not return until late this evening. 
Feel free to reply, and I will get back to you later. 
I also have words to post concerning your groups inability to meet the deadline for posting the citing of the law that states that a State cannot secede from the union.
Deo Vindice......*


----------



## James Everett

Ravi said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Need more?
> 
> *The first shots were fired in January of 1861. *
> 
> Buchanan was President and he was trying to resupply Sumter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to enlarge
> 
> The South fired upon the Union Steamship Star of the West
> 
> They took another ship and seized it: "The Marion."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then converted her to a Man of War ship.
> *THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." ; SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR. *
> 
> Star of the West
> 
> Note the date on the Harpers Weekly newspaper:* January, 1861*, linked above.
> *THE FIRST OF THE WAR. *
> 
> "WE publish herewith pictures of the United States  steam-sloop Brooklyn, and of the steamship Star of the West, and of the steamship Marion, which three vessels figured so prominently in the movements of last week; and on page 37 we give a large plan of  Charleston harbor, showing the forts, etc., together with a view of  Fort Johnson. These pictures will enable our readers to realize what is going on in this most memorable contest of the present age.
> 
> On Wednesday morning, January 9, 1861, the
> 
> *first shots were fired At daybreak on that morning at the steamship Star of the West, with 250 United States troops on board, attempted to enter the harbor of Charleston for the purpose of communicating with  Fort Sumter*
> 
> The people of Charleston had been warned of her coming and of her errand by telegraph. They determined to prevent her reaching  Fort Sumter. *Accordingly, as soon as she came within range, batteries on Morris Island and at Fort Moultrie opened on her*. The first shot was fired across her bows ;
> 
> whereupon she increased her speed, and hoisted the  stars and stripes. Other shots were then fired in rapid succession from Morris Island, two or more of which hulled the steamer, and compelled her to put about and go to sea.
> 
> The accompanying picture shows the Star of the West as she entered  Charleston harbor; the plan will explain the situation of the forts, and the position of the steamer when she was fired upon. The channel through which she passed runs close by Morris Island for some distance.
> Fort Sumter made no demonstration, except at the port-holes, where guns were run out bearing on Morris Island."
> 
> 
> They did this before Lincoln even set foot in the office. Before they had even all officially Seceded. * An ACT OF WAR. *
> *
> Seizing government property of forts and arsenals all across the South is also an Act of War. *
> 
> 
> 
> Paperview, you asked.... "Need more?"
> Yes, in fact we need you to post the answer to the only relevant issue. Please cite the law that states that secession is an illegal act. Everything else is irrelevant because even if all that you post is an act of war, then the Southern Confederate States were no longer part of the U.S. Hence the U.S. Cannot constitutionally force States to become a member State in the union. Hence we are indeed illegally occupied by the U.S. Which is called tyranny just as it was under the former Soviet Union. Please cite that law!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't really matter. The South lost, wether as a conquered foreign nation or an illegally seceding group of states.
Click to expand...

What you are stating is that we remain under the occupation of the United States.......


----------



## paperview




----------



## Discombobulated

James Everett said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Need more?
> 
> *The first shots were fired in January of 1861. *
> 
> Buchanan was President and he was trying to resupply Sumter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to enlarge
> 
> The South fired upon the Union Steamship Star of the West
> 
> They took another ship and seized it: "The Marion."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then converted her to a Man of War ship.
> *THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." ; SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR. *
> 
> Star of the West
> 
> Note the date on the Harpers Weekly newspaper:* January, 1861*, linked above.
> *THE FIRST OF THE WAR. *
> 
> "WE publish herewith pictures of the United States  steam-sloop Brooklyn, and of the steamship Star of the West, and of the steamship Marion, which three vessels figured so prominently in the movements of last week; and on page 37 we give a large plan of  Charleston harbor, showing the forts, etc., together with a view of  Fort Johnson. These pictures will enable our readers to realize what is going on in this most memorable contest of the present age.
> 
> On Wednesday morning, January 9, 1861, the
> 
> *first shots were fired At daybreak on that morning at the steamship Star of the West, with 250 United States troops on board, attempted to enter the harbor of Charleston for the purpose of communicating with  Fort Sumter*
> 
> The people of Charleston had been warned of her coming and of her errand by telegraph. They determined to prevent her reaching  Fort Sumter. *Accordingly, as soon as she came within range, batteries on Morris Island and at Fort Moultrie opened on her*. The first shot was fired across her bows ;
> 
> whereupon she increased her speed, and hoisted the  stars and stripes. Other shots were then fired in rapid succession from Morris Island, two or more of which hulled the steamer, and compelled her to put about and go to sea.
> 
> The accompanying picture shows the Star of the West as she entered  Charleston harbor; the plan will explain the situation of the forts, and the position of the steamer when she was fired upon. The channel through which she passed runs close by Morris Island for some distance.
> Fort Sumter made no demonstration, except at the port-holes, where guns were run out bearing on Morris Island."
> 
> 
> They did this before Lincoln even set foot in the office. Before they had even all officially Seceded. * An ACT OF WAR. *
> *
> Seizing government property of forts and arsenals all across the South is also an Act of War. *
> 
> 
> 
> Paperview, you asked.... "Need more?"
> Yes, in fact we need you to post the answer to the only relevant issue. Please cite the law that states that secession is an illegal act. Everything else is irrelevant because even if all that you post is an act of war, then the Southern Confederate States were no longer part of the U.S. Hence the U.S. Cannot constitutionally force States to become a member State in the union. Hence we are indeed illegally occupied by the U.S. Which is called tyranny just as it was under the former Soviet Union. Please cite that law!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't really matter. The South lost, wether as a conquered foreign nation or an illegally seceding group of states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you are stating is that we remain under the occupation of the United States.......
Click to expand...



And I'm stating that you are a complete fucking idiot who can't be taught.


----------



## Discombobulated

Ravi said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was always unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Post the article and section/paragraph, then.
> Your opinion doesn't matter here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> America lost what? The "right" to enslave black people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> america lost when the government decided to invade, murder/rape/rob civilians (fellow americans, mind you), steal their property, burn their homes and businesses and wreck their infrastructure because they want to legally and peacefully withdraw from the _union_.
> 
> Why exactly is it so important to you that people trying to exercise their legal rights to withdraw and form their own government should be violently subdued and brought under domination?
> 
> Was king george correct to invade the colonies and murder civilians because the colonists wanted to withdraw from england?
> 
> Apparently, using your logic, if your wife asks for a divorce, you believe it's ok to beat her for it.
> 
> We send troops around the world to help other nations form their own democratic governments...but you think it's ok to murder fellow citizens who wanted the same things...Hypocrisy much?
> 
> Regardless..this country is finished anyway...and the next time a group of states decide to withdraw (and it's coming...probably in the west. Most Southern states would likely join them, too)....there's nothing your gvmt will be able to do about it...so laugh it up, sweetie...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh..you don't want to talk about the war of northern aggression any more...now you want to quote the preamble....
> Collapse, partitioning and reconstruction, ravi.
> Corrections will be made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You asked a question and didn't like the answer. The South got what it deserved.
Click to expand...


Not quite.  If they had gotten what they deserved the leaders of the Confederacy would have all been hanged as traitors.


----------



## James Everett

Discombobulated said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Need more?
> 
> *The first shots were fired in January of 1861. *
> 
> Buchanan was President and he was trying to resupply Sumter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to enlarge
> 
> The South fired upon the Union Steamship Star of the West
> 
> They took another ship and seized it: "The Marion."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then converted her to a Man of War ship.
> *THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." ; SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR. *
> 
> Star of the West
> 
> Note the date on the Harpers Weekly newspaper:* January, 1861*, linked above.
> *THE FIRST OF THE WAR. *
> 
> "WE publish herewith pictures of the United States  steam-sloop Brooklyn, and of the steamship Star of the West, and of the steamship Marion, which three vessels figured so prominently in the movements of last week; and on page 37 we give a large plan of  Charleston harbor, showing the forts, etc., together with a view of  Fort Johnson. These pictures will enable our readers to realize what is going on in this most memorable contest of the present age.
> 
> On Wednesday morning, January 9, 1861, the
> 
> *first shots were fired At daybreak on that morning at the steamship Star of the West, with 250 United States troops on board, attempted to enter the harbor of Charleston for the purpose of communicating with  Fort Sumter*
> 
> The people of Charleston had been warned of her coming and of her errand by telegraph. They determined to prevent her reaching  Fort Sumter. *Accordingly, as soon as she came within range, batteries on Morris Island and at Fort Moultrie opened on her*. The first shot was fired across her bows ;
> 
> whereupon she increased her speed, and hoisted the  stars and stripes. Other shots were then fired in rapid succession from Morris Island, two or more of which hulled the steamer, and compelled her to put about and go to sea.
> 
> The accompanying picture shows the Star of the West as she entered  Charleston harbor; the plan will explain the situation of the forts, and the position of the steamer when she was fired upon. The channel through which she passed runs close by Morris Island for some distance.
> Fort Sumter made no demonstration, except at the port-holes, where guns were run out bearing on Morris Island."
> 
> 
> They did this before Lincoln even set foot in the office. Before they had even all officially Seceded. * An ACT OF WAR. *
> *
> Seizing government property of forts and arsenals all across the South is also an Act of War. *
> 
> 
> 
> Paperview, you asked.... "Need more?"
> Yes, in fact we need you to post the answer to the only relevant issue. Please cite the law that states that secession is an illegal act. Everything else is irrelevant because even if all that you post is an act of war, then the Southern Confederate States were no longer part of the U.S. Hence the U.S. Cannot constitutionally force States to become a member State in the union. Hence we are indeed illegally occupied by the U.S. Which is called tyranny just as it was under the former Soviet Union. Please cite that law!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't really matter. The South lost, wether as a conquered foreign nation or an illegally seceding group of states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you are stating is that we remain under the occupation of the United States.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm stating that you are a complete fucking idiot who can't be taught.
Click to expand...

Spreading your BS is not teaching. You need to sit down, shut up, listen and learn.


----------



## James Everett

Discombobulated said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was always unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Post the article and section/paragraph, then.
> Your opinion doesn't matter here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> America lost what? The "right" to enslave black people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> america lost when the government decided to invade, murder/rape/rob civilians (fellow americans, mind you), steal their property, burn their homes and businesses and wreck their infrastructure because they want to legally and peacefully withdraw from the _union_.
> 
> Why exactly is it so important to you that people trying to exercise their legal rights to withdraw and form their own government should be violently subdued and brought under domination?
> 
> Was king george correct to invade the colonies and murder civilians because the colonists wanted to withdraw from england?
> 
> Apparently, using your logic, if your wife asks for a divorce, you believe it's ok to beat her for it.
> 
> We send troops around the world to help other nations form their own democratic governments...but you think it's ok to murder fellow citizens who wanted the same things...Hypocrisy much?
> 
> Regardless..this country is finished anyway...and the next time a group of states decide to withdraw (and it's coming...probably in the west. Most Southern states would likely join them, too)....there's nothing your gvmt will be able to do about it...so laugh it up, sweetie...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh..you don't want to talk about the war of northern aggression any more...now you want to quote the preamble....
> Collapse, partitioning and reconstruction, ravi.
> Corrections will be made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You asked a question and didn't like the answer. The South got what it deserved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not quite.  If they had gotten what they deserved the leaders of the Confederacy would have all been hanged as traitors.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately they for the north the Southerners were not traitors. They were patriots.


----------



## Discombobulated

James Everett said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Need more?
> 
> *The first shots were fired in January of 1861. *
> 
> Buchanan was President and he was trying to resupply Sumter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to enlarge
> 
> The South fired upon the Union Steamship Star of the West
> 
> They took another ship and seized it: "The Marion."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then converted her to a Man of War ship.
> *THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." ; SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR. *
> 
> Star of the West
> 
> Note the date on the Harpers Weekly newspaper:* January, 1861*, linked above.
> *THE FIRST OF THE WAR. *
> 
> "WE publish herewith pictures of the United States  steam-sloop Brooklyn, and of the steamship Star of the West, and of the steamship Marion, which three vessels figured so prominently in the movements of last week; and on page 37 we give a large plan of  Charleston harbor, showing the forts, etc., together with a view of  Fort Johnson. These pictures will enable our readers to realize what is going on in this most memorable contest of the present age.
> 
> On Wednesday morning, January 9, 1861, the
> 
> *first shots were fired At daybreak on that morning at the steamship Star of the West, with 250 United States troops on board, attempted to enter the harbor of Charleston for the purpose of communicating with  Fort Sumter*
> 
> The people of Charleston had been warned of her coming and of her errand by telegraph. They determined to prevent her reaching  Fort Sumter. *Accordingly, as soon as she came within range, batteries on Morris Island and at Fort Moultrie opened on her*. The first shot was fired across her bows ;
> 
> whereupon she increased her speed, and hoisted the  stars and stripes. Other shots were then fired in rapid succession from Morris Island, two or more of which hulled the steamer, and compelled her to put about and go to sea.
> 
> The accompanying picture shows the Star of the West as she entered  Charleston harbor; the plan will explain the situation of the forts, and the position of the steamer when she was fired upon. The channel through which she passed runs close by Morris Island for some distance.
> Fort Sumter made no demonstration, except at the port-holes, where guns were run out bearing on Morris Island."
> 
> 
> They did this before Lincoln even set foot in the office. Before they had even all officially Seceded. * An ACT OF WAR. *
> *
> Seizing government property of forts and arsenals all across the South is also an Act of War. *
> 
> 
> 
> Paperview, you asked.... "Need more?"
> Yes, in fact we need you to post the answer to the only relevant issue. Please cite the law that states that secession is an illegal act. Everything else is irrelevant because even if all that you post is an act of war, then the Southern Confederate States were no longer part of the U.S. Hence the U.S. Cannot constitutionally force States to become a member State in the union. Hence we are indeed illegally occupied by the U.S. Which is called tyranny just as it was under the former Soviet Union. Please cite that law!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't really matter. The South lost, wether as a conquered foreign nation or an illegally seceding group of states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you are stating is that we remain under the occupation of the United States.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm stating that you are a complete fucking idiot who can't be taught.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spreading your BS is not teaching. You need to sit down, shut up, listen and learn.
Click to expand...


You have failed completely to establish any part of your alleged premise.


----------



## Discombobulated

James Everett said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Post the article and section/paragraph, then.
> Your opinion doesn't matter here.
> 
> 
> america lost when the government decided to invade, murder/rape/rob civilians (fellow americans, mind you), steal their property, burn their homes and businesses and wreck their infrastructure because they want to legally and peacefully withdraw from the _union_.
> 
> Why exactly is it so important to you that people trying to exercise their legal rights to withdraw and form their own government should be violently subdued and brought under domination?
> 
> Was king george correct to invade the colonies and murder civilians because the colonists wanted to withdraw from england?
> 
> Apparently, using your logic, if your wife asks for a divorce, you believe it's ok to beat her for it.
> 
> We send troops around the world to help other nations form their own democratic governments...but you think it's ok to murder fellow citizens who wanted the same things...Hypocrisy much?
> 
> Regardless..this country is finished anyway...and the next time a group of states decide to withdraw (and it's coming...probably in the west. Most Southern states would likely join them, too)....there's nothing your gvmt will be able to do about it...so laugh it up, sweetie...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh..you don't want to talk about the war of northern aggression any more...now you want to quote the preamble....
> Collapse, partitioning and reconstruction, ravi.
> Corrections will be made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You asked a question and didn't like the answer. The South got what it deserved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not quite.  If they had gotten what they deserved the leaders of the Confederacy would have all been hanged as traitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately they for the north the Southerners were not traitors. They were patriots.
Click to expand...


Looks like it's time for the next history lesson, pay attention so you can answer questions later.

South Carolina Secession Part 1 Video C-SPAN.org


----------



## Discombobulated

There never was any constitutionally legal justification for secession.  But you certainly could argue that many Confederates sincerely believed they had that right.

Southern Perceptions Abraham Lincoln Video C-SPAN.org


----------



## James Everett

Discombobulated said:


> There never was any constitutionally legal justification for secession.  But you certainly could argue that many Confederates sincerely believed they had that right.
> 
> Southern Perceptions Abraham Lincoln Video C-SPAN.org


No justification was needed, there was nor iss law to preventaState from exiting the union. You just don't get it. Do you?  Do you needed justification to severe a relationship with a friend or leave your job? What is it about NO LAW that you don't understand?


----------



## Discombobulated

James Everett said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There never was any constitutionally legal justification for secession.  But you certainly could argue that many Confederates sincerely believed they had that right.
> 
> Southern Perceptions Abraham Lincoln Video C-SPAN.org
> 
> 
> 
> No justification was needed, there was nor iss law to preventaState from exiting the union. You just don't get it. Do you?  Do you needed justification to severe a relationship with a friend or leave your job? What is it about NO LAW that you don't understand?
Click to expand...


What I do understand is that if want to peacefully dismember this nation you need a formalized legal process to do so.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Rogue 9 said:


> .  The Slave Power had to go.


pure idiotic lunacy!! Slavery had been around for 20,000 years. It did not have to go in 1863 as if that was some sort of deadline, and it certainly did not have to go at the cost of 800,000 lives!!

Do you realize 800,000 human beings is a lot of human beings? Do you realize most died very very slowly in great agony?? What is wrong with your ability to think?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

paperview said:


> Yeah, fuck the 4 million who were property -



Conservatives believe in slow change. The Civil War was a disaster any way you look at it. President of Harvard has a book out saying the only reason Lincoln is a hero is so we don't have to face the 800,000 dead for next to nothing as he stupidly enhanced the power of the liberal federal govt 1000 times.


----------



## Discombobulated

Time for another lesson.

South Carolina Secession Part 2 Video C-SPAN.org


----------



## paperview

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .  The Slave Power had to go.
> 
> 
> 
> pure idiotic lunacy!! Slavery had been around for 20,000 years. It did not have to go in 1863 as if that was some sort of deadline, and it certainly did not have to go at the cost of 800,000 lives!!
> 
> Do you realize 800,000 human beings is a lot of human beings? Do you realize most died very very slowly in great agony?? What is wrong with your ability to think?
Click to expand...

Just say it outright Eddy boy - you'd be quite content if slavery was _still _around.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

paperview said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .  The Slave Power had to go.
> 
> 
> 
> pure idiotic lunacy!! Slavery had been around for 20,000 years. It did not have to go in 1863 as if that was some sort of deadline, and it certainly did not have to go at the cost of 800,000 lives!!
> 
> Do you realize 800,000 human beings is a lot of human beings? Do you realize most died very very slowly in great agony?? What is wrong with your ability to think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just say it outright Eddy boy - you'd be quite content if slavery was _still _around.
Click to expand...

 if you have evidence of that I'll pay you $10,000. Bet or admit to being a liar.


----------



## paperview

What a stupid thing to say.
Your words indict you.

White supremacist scum.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

paperview said:


> What a stupid thing to say.
> Your words indict you.
> 
> White supremacist scum.



if you have evidence of that I'll pay you $10,000. Bet or admit to being a liar.


----------



## Discombobulated

James Everett said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The inability of the Articles Congress to enforce the terms of the treaty was grounds for a lot of foreign tension in the years immediately after the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you have any idea what your subject is?? This is supposed to be about Civil War causes. Do you have any idea what caused the civil war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I do know what my subject is.  The point is to establish that the men who wrote the Constitution (George Washington chaired the Constitutional Convention the year after writing that) did not intend for the Union to be broken up.  As you may or may not have noticed, the subject of the thread kind of got changed back on page 3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and so is the subject as the title implies: causes of civil war? Do you know the causes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.  Read the OP, I assure you it's quite thorough, though not as thorough as it could be because I ran into the character limit in the place it was originally posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The op is a piece of crap, it makes incorrect assertions, and never addresses the legality of secession.
Click to expand...


I can address that issue for you right now:  There never was any legal basis for secession.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Discombobulated said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> do you have any idea what your subject is?? This is supposed to be about Civil War causes. Do you have any idea what caused the civil war?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do know what my subject is.  The point is to establish that the men who wrote the Constitution (George Washington chaired the Constitutional Convention the year after writing that) did not intend for the Union to be broken up.  As you may or may not have noticed, the subject of the thread kind of got changed back on page 3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and so is the subject as the title implies: causes of civil war? Do you know the causes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.  Read the OP, I assure you it's quite thorough, though not as thorough as it could be because I ran into the character limit in the place it was originally posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The op is a piece of crap, it makes incorrect assertions, and never addresses the legality of secession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can address that issue for you right now:  There never was any legal basis for secession.
Click to expand...


most importantly, was the rapid liberal change of the war worth 800,000 lives 100 years of Jim Crow and 40 years of hip hop culture?


----------



## Discombobulated

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do know what my subject is.  The point is to establish that the men who wrote the Constitution (George Washington chaired the Constitutional Convention the year after writing that) did not intend for the Union to be broken up.  As you may or may not have noticed, the subject of the thread kind of got changed back on page 3.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and so is the subject as the title implies: causes of civil war? Do you know the causes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.  Read the OP, I assure you it's quite thorough, though not as thorough as it could be because I ran into the character limit in the place it was originally posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The op is a piece of crap, it makes incorrect assertions, and never addresses the legality of secession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can address that issue for you right now:  There never was any legal basis for secession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> most importantly, was the rapid liberal change of the war worth 800,000 lives 100 years of Jim Crow and 40 years of hip hop culture?
Click to expand...


Most importantly to who?


----------



## James Everett

Discombobulated said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> do you have any idea what your subject is?? This is supposed to be about Civil War causes. Do you have any idea what caused the civil war?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do know what my subject is.  The point is to establish that the men who wrote the Constitution (George Washington chaired the Constitutional Convention the year after writing that) did not intend for the Union to be broken up.  As you may or may not have noticed, the subject of the thread kind of got changed back on page 3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and so is the subject as the title implies: causes of civil war? Do you know the causes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.  Read the OP, I assure you it's quite thorough, though not as thorough as it could be because I ran into the character limit in the place it was originally posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The op is a piece of crap, it makes incorrect assertions, and never addresses the legality of secession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can address that issue for you right now:  There never was any legal basis for secession.
Click to expand...

Discombobulated, there is no legal basis to stop a state from seceding, that's the point. If there is no law established making something illegal, then it is most certainly legal. The tenth amendment covers that issue.


----------



## Ravi

Discombobulated said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was always unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Post the article and section/paragraph, then.
> Your opinion doesn't matter here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> America lost what? The "right" to enslave black people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> america lost when the government decided to invade, murder/rape/rob civilians (fellow americans, mind you), steal their property, burn their homes and businesses and wreck their infrastructure because they want to legally and peacefully withdraw from the _union_.
> 
> Why exactly is it so important to you that people trying to exercise their legal rights to withdraw and form their own government should be violently subdued and brought under domination?
> 
> Was king george correct to invade the colonies and murder civilians because the colonists wanted to withdraw from england?
> 
> Apparently, using your logic, if your wife asks for a divorce, you believe it's ok to beat her for it.
> 
> We send troops around the world to help other nations form their own democratic governments...but you think it's ok to murder fellow citizens who wanted the same things...Hypocrisy much?
> 
> Regardless..this country is finished anyway...and the next time a group of states decide to withdraw (and it's coming...probably in the west. Most Southern states would likely join them, too)....there's nothing your gvmt will be able to do about it...so laugh it up, sweetie...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh..you don't want to talk about the war of northern aggression any more...now you want to quote the preamble....
> Collapse, partitioning and reconstruction, ravi.
> Corrections will be made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You asked a question and didn't like the answer. The South got what it deserved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not quite.  If they had gotten what they deserved the leaders of the Confederacy would have all been hanged as traitors.
Click to expand...

Good point.


----------



## MaryL

I am rethinking my stance on southern secession in 1861. They had a right to succeed, and, given the reasons, they would have rued the day.  And on top of that, Slavery was doomed to fail because of the  industrial revolution, let alone Christian values would have led the south  to eventually relent and abandon slavery. And it would have saved  lives, maybe even Lincoln's. If you love something let it go... The southern states would have sued to get back in the union years later after this hiccup.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The Southern leaders would not accept constitutional, electoral procedure.

South Carolina had seceded months before Lincoln was inaugurated.

The CSA fired on US ships under Buchanan and Lincoln's administrations.

No where does the 10th Amendment, much less the Constitution, permit states to secede.

Slavery was well off and protected, with 90% of the economy vested directed and indirectly in the cotton empire.

Southerners could (1) no longer stand being called immoral, and (2) not live on an equal basis with the slaves.  They are much like our far right conservatives.

The Old South deserved to die.


----------



## Discombobulated

James Everett said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do know what my subject is.  The point is to establish that the men who wrote the Constitution (George Washington chaired the Constitutional Convention the year after writing that) did not intend for the Union to be broken up.  As you may or may not have noticed, the subject of the thread kind of got changed back on page 3.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and so is the subject as the title implies: causes of civil war? Do you know the causes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.  Read the OP, I assure you it's quite thorough, though not as thorough as it could be because I ran into the character limit in the place it was originally posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The op is a piece of crap, it makes incorrect assertions, and never addresses the legality of secession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can address that issue for you right now:  There never was any legal basis for secession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Discombobulated, there is no legal basis to stop a state from seceding, that's the point. If there is no law established making something illegal, then it is most certainly legal. The tenth amendment covers that issue.
Click to expand...


Wrong again......or rather still.


----------



## Discombobulated

MaryL said:


> I am rethinking my stance on southern secession in 1861. They had a right to succeed, and, given the reasons, they would have rued the day.  And on top of that, Slavery was doomed to fail because of the  industrial revolution, let alone Christian values would have led the south  to eventually relent and abandon slavery. And it would have saved  lives, maybe even Lincoln's. If you love something let it go... The southern states would have sued to get back in the union years later after this hiccup.



Just plain silly.


----------



## Discombobulated

Ravi said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Post the article and section/paragraph, then.
> Your opinion doesn't matter here.
> 
> 
> america lost when the government decided to invade, murder/rape/rob civilians (fellow americans, mind you), steal their property, burn their homes and businesses and wreck their infrastructure because they want to legally and peacefully withdraw from the _union_.
> 
> Why exactly is it so important to you that people trying to exercise their legal rights to withdraw and form their own government should be violently subdued and brought under domination?
> 
> Was king george correct to invade the colonies and murder civilians because the colonists wanted to withdraw from england?
> 
> Apparently, using your logic, if your wife asks for a divorce, you believe it's ok to beat her for it.
> 
> We send troops around the world to help other nations form their own democratic governments...but you think it's ok to murder fellow citizens who wanted the same things...Hypocrisy much?
> 
> Regardless..this country is finished anyway...and the next time a group of states decide to withdraw (and it's coming...probably in the west. Most Southern states would likely join them, too)....there's nothing your gvmt will be able to do about it...so laugh it up, sweetie...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh..you don't want to talk about the war of northern aggression any more...now you want to quote the preamble....
> Collapse, partitioning and reconstruction, ravi.
> Corrections will be made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You asked a question and didn't like the answer. The South got what it deserved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not quite.  If they had gotten what they deserved the leaders of the Confederacy would have all been hanged as traitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good point.
Click to expand...


Many southern folks learned the wrong lessons from the Civil War.  Had we hanged the leaders as traitors then they might have understood that the question of secession is settled.


----------



## MaryL

Discombobulated said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am rethinking my stance on southern secession in 1861. They had a right to succeed, and, given the reasons, they would have rued the day.  And on top of that, Slavery was doomed to fail because of the  industrial revolution, let alone Christian values would have led the south  to eventually relent and abandon slavery. And it would have saved  lives, maybe even Lincoln's. If you love something let it go... The southern states would have sued to get back in the union years later after this hiccup.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just plain silly.
Click to expand...

  No facts  or anything, No argument. Great  response, well thought out.


----------



## Discombobulated

MaryL said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am rethinking my stance on southern secession in 1861. They had a right to succeed, and, given the reasons, they would have rued the day.  And on top of that, Slavery was doomed to fail because of the  industrial revolution, let alone Christian values would have led the south  to eventually relent and abandon slavery. And it would have saved  lives, maybe even Lincoln's. If you love something let it go... The southern states would have sued to get back in the union years later after this hiccup.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just plain silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No facts  or anything, No argument. Great  response, well thought out.
Click to expand...

Did you bother reading the thread?


----------



## MaryL

Did you?


----------



## Discombobulated

MaryL said:


> I am rethinking my stance on southern secession in 1861. They had a right to succeed, and, given the reasons, they would have rued the day.  And on top of that, Slavery was doomed to fail because of the  industrial revolution, let alone Christian values would have led the south  to eventually relent and abandon slavery. And it would have saved  lives, maybe even Lincoln's. If you love something let it go... The southern states would have sued to get back in the union years later after this hiccup.



Exactly wrong and completely stupid.  Slavery became much more important as a direct result of the industrial revolution making cotton production the most important export from the south.  Which made slaves their most important financial investment, worth more than all the factories and foundries of the north.   And Christian values were used to justify slavery as often as not.  So where are your alleged facts?  I don't see any.


----------



## Discombobulated

MaryL said:


> Did you?



You're a little late to be relevant now.


----------



## Discombobulated

Lesson time.

Civil War Avoided Video C-SPAN.org


----------



## Billo_Really

The civil war started over a mis-understanding.

Lincoln was very aware of the impact (and higher costs) southerners were having with their slave labor, due to the blockades and tariff's, so he thought he would offer them an olive branch by sending down an emissary to tell the southern plantation owners,_* "From now on, all your slaves are free!"*_

But they took it the wrong way.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Slavery was not headed for extinction in the near future.

The slaves of Cuba and Brazil were decades from liberty in 1860.


----------



## Discombobulated

JakeStarkey said:


> Slavery was not headed for extinction in the near future.
> 
> The slaves of Cuba and Brazil were decades from liberty in 1860.



I wonder how slavery could have ended peacefully?  War was inevitable because the slave holders would never have compromised, they held political and economic power.    If it were up to Confederates slavery never would have ended, they'd still be claiming the right to fight for their freedom to preserve slavery.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> The Southern leaders would not accept constitutional, electoral procedure.
> 
> South Carolina had seceded months before Lincoln was inaugurated.
> 
> The CSA fired on US ships under Buchanan and Lincoln's administrations.
> 
> No where does the 10th Amendment, much less the Constitution, permit states to secede.
> 
> Slavery was well off and protected, with 90% of the economy vested directed and indirectly in the cotton empire.
> 
> Southerners could (1) no longer stand being called immoral, and (2) not live on an equal basis with the slaves.  They are much like our far right conservatives.
> 
> The Old South deserved to die.


JakeStarkey, 
You write....
"The CSA fired on US ships under Buchanan and Lincoln's administrations."
*Buchanan attempted to send a supply ship to the Yankee soldiers at Fort 
Sumter, In order to reach Fort Sumter, that supply ship would violate the sovereign State of South Carolina's territorial waters in CHARLESTON HARBOR: The invasion of South Carolina/CHARLESTON HARBOR by this supply ship was an act of War, when the U.S. was forbidden to enter South Carolina's territorial waters. A U.S. Ship cannot simply waltz into any Harbor in the world if the Country wherein the harbor lies forbids its entrance. Such would constitute an act of War, this is why today, if a U.S. Air Force plane enters Russian airspace it will likely be met with force and be shot down.*
*Next you state....*
"No where does the 10th Amendment, much less the Constitution, permit states to secede."
The simple fact that YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. Constitution does not address the subject of secession, means that it is a POWER reserved by each State INDIVIDUALLY....READ THE TENTH AMENDMENT....
"*The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people*." 

*JAKE STARKEY, You also state.....*
"Southerners could (1) no longer stand being called immoral, and (2) not live on an equal basis with the slaves.  They are much like our far right conservatives."
*How about I ask you a question here to show your hypocrisy....
Could the U.S. stand to live on an equal basis with the Native American Indian in 1860? 
How were the free Slaves in the North Treated? Or the Irish for that matter? Were they treated as equals? 
The reason I ask is that I am confused when I read these Northern States Jim Crow laws....*
*Pennsylvania*
1869: Education [Statute] Black children prohibited from attending Pittsburgh schools.
1956: Adoption [Statute] Petition must state race or color of adopting parents.

*Rhode Island*
1872: Miscegenation [State Code] Prohibited intermarriage. Penalty: $1,000 fine, or up to six months' imprisonment.

*

 Ohio*
Enacted a miscegenation statute in 1877 and a school segregation law in 1878. Segregation of public facilities was barred in 1884
* Illinois*
1927: Housing [Municipal Code]
Chicago adopted racially restrictive housing covenants beginning in 1927.

*Indiana*
Enacted seven Jim Crow laws in the areas of education and miscegenation between 1869 and 1952.


----------



## James Everett

Discombobulated said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> and so is the subject as the title implies: causes of civil war? Do you know the causes?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Read the OP, I assure you it's quite thorough, though not as thorough as it could be because I ran into the character limit in the place it was originally posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The op is a piece of crap, it makes incorrect assertions, and never addresses the legality of secession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can address that issue for you right now:  There never was any legal basis for secession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Discombobulated, there is no legal basis to stop a state from seceding, that's the point. If there is no law established making something illegal, then it is most certainly legal. The tenth amendment covers that issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again......or rather still.
Click to expand...

*No, I am right and you know it, As I have challenged.....
Cite the law, Article within your 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, or amendment thereto that states that secession is an illegal act.
You simply stating "Wrong" does NOT make it so.*


----------



## Discombobulated

James Everett said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There never was any constitutionally legal justification for secession.  But you certainly could argue that many Confederates sincerely believed they had that right.
> 
> Southern Perceptions Abraham Lincoln Video C-SPAN.org
> 
> 
> 
> No justification was needed, there was nor iss law to preventaState from exiting the union. You just don't get it. Do you?  Do you needed justification to severe a relationship with a friend or leave your job? What is it about NO LAW that you don't understand?
Click to expand...


A sovereign nation is now apparently defined as a social club.


----------



## James Everett

Discombobulated said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh..you don't want to talk about the war of northern aggression any more...now you want to quote the preamble....
> Collapse, partitioning and reconstruction, ravi.
> Corrections will be made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You asked a question and didn't like the answer. The South got what it deserved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not quite.  If they had gotten what they deserved the leaders of the Confederacy would have all been hanged as traitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many southern folks learned the wrong lessons from the Civil War.  Had we hanged the leaders as traitors then they might have understood that the question of secession is settled.
Click to expand...

Discombobulated, you state.....
*"Many southern folks learned the wrong lessons from the Civil War.  Had we hanged the leaders as traitors then they might have understood that the question of secession is settled."*
*Is YOUR U.S. not a nation of laws???? 
Our Southern leaders could not have legally been hanged as traitors, because they were NOT BY DEFINITION TRAITORS.
Under Article III,Section 3, of the Constitution,any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. 
Here YOU MUST RETURN TO THE FIRST CAUSE...
There was, nor is an Article within your 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, or amendment thereto that states that secession is an illegal act. Therefore when the Southern States seceded, the citizens thereof, were NO LONGER U.S. CITIZENS, hence a NON citizen cannot commit treason against a country in which he is not a citizen.
*


----------



## James Everett

Discombobulated said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There never was any constitutionally legal justification for secession.  But you certainly could argue that many Confederates sincerely believed they had that right.
> 
> Southern Perceptions Abraham Lincoln Video C-SPAN.org
> 
> 
> 
> No justification was needed, there was nor iss law to preventaState from exiting the union. You just don't get it. Do you?  Do you needed justification to severe a relationship with a friend or leave your job? What is it about NO LAW that you don't understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A sovereign nation is now apparently defined as a social club.
Click to expand...

Dis....
You state...
"A sovereign nation is now apparently defined as a social club"
Sir,
*It is a UNION OF STATES, united by treaty, called the U.S. CONstitution. The central government is a sovereign entity acting within the VERY SMALL sphere of authority that the States delegated to it. The States are also Sovereigns acting within there near unlimited sphere of RETAINED AUTHORITY/POWER. *


----------



## James Everett

Discombobulated said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was not headed for extinction in the near future.
> 
> The slaves of Cuba and Brazil were decades from liberty in 1860.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how slavery could have ended peacefully?  War was inevitable because the slave holders would never have compromised, they held political and economic power.    If it were up to Confederates slavery never would have ended, they'd still be claiming the right to fight for their freedom to preserve slavery.
Click to expand...

Disbo,
That is a gratuitous asertion backed by nothing more than your attempt to gain a moral superior position, which looking back on what the U.S. government did in its extermination of the Native American Indian, You cannot possibly hold that position.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> Slavery was not headed for extinction in the near future.
> 
> The slaves of Cuba and Brazil were decades from liberty in 1860.


JAKESTARKEY, You state....
*"The slaves of Cuba and Brazil were decades from liberty in 1860."
Why did the U.S. not continue its crusade to end slavery by invading Cuba and Brazil?
*


----------



## James Everett

Discombobulated said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am rethinking my stance on southern secession in 1861. They had a right to succeed, and, given the reasons, they would have rued the day.  And on top of that, Slavery was doomed to fail because of the  industrial revolution, let alone Christian values would have led the south  to eventually relent and abandon slavery. And it would have saved  lives, maybe even Lincoln's. If you love something let it go... The southern states would have sued to get back in the union years later after this hiccup.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly wrong and completely stupid.  Slavery became much more important as a direct result of the industrial revolution making cotton production the most important export from the south.  Which made slaves their most important financial investment, worth more than all the factories and foundries of the north.   And Christian values were used to justify slavery as often as not.  So where are your alleged facts?  I don't see any.
Click to expand...


Discoma,
*And what is YOUR excuse for YOUR U.S. Governments extermination practices against the Native American Indian???? Were they not called Savage heathens by the Northern Christian? And I suppose the gold in the western land wherein the plains Indians and those in California such as the Nez Perce inhabited was worth more than those same factories and foundries in the North?*


----------



## Discombobulated

James Everett said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was not headed for extinction in the near future.
> 
> The slaves of Cuba and Brazil were decades from liberty in 1860.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how slavery could have ended peacefully?  War was inevitable because the slave holders would never have compromised, they held political and economic power.    If it were up to Confederates slavery never would have ended, they'd still be claiming the right to fight for their freedom to preserve slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Disbo,
> That is a gratuitous asertion backed by nothing more than your attempt to gain a moral superior position, which looking back on what the U.S. government did in its extermination of the Native American Indian, You cannot possibly hold that position.
Click to expand...


I have absolutely no idea what Indians have to do with slavery and secession.


----------



## Discombobulated

James Everett said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh..you don't want to talk about the war of northern aggression any more...now you want to quote the preamble....
> Collapse, partitioning and reconstruction, ravi.
> Corrections will be made.
> 
> 
> 
> You asked a question and didn't like the answer. The South got what it deserved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not quite.  If they had gotten what they deserved the leaders of the Confederacy would have all been hanged as traitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many southern folks learned the wrong lessons from the Civil War.  Had we hanged the leaders as traitors then they might have understood that the question of secession is settled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Discombobulated, you state.....
> *"Many southern folks learned the wrong lessons from the Civil War.  Had we hanged the leaders as traitors then they might have understood that the question of secession is settled."
> Is YOUR U.S. not a nation of laws????
> Our Southern leaders could not have legally been hanged as traitors, because they were NOT BY DEFINITION TRAITORS.
> Under Article III,Section 3, of the Constitution,any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution.
> Here YOU MUST RETURN TO THE FIRST CAUSE...
> There was, nor is an Article within your 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, or amendment thereto that states that secession is an illegal act. Therefore when the Southern States seceded, the citizens thereof, were NO LONGER U.S. CITIZENS, hence a NON citizen cannot commit treason against a country in which he is not a citizen.*
Click to expand...


Actual Constitutional scholars evidently don't concur with your fanciful interpretations.


----------



## Discombobulated

James Everett said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh..you don't want to talk about the war of northern aggression any more...now you want to quote the preamble....
> Collapse, partitioning and reconstruction, ravi.
> Corrections will be made.
> 
> 
> 
> You asked a question and didn't like the answer. The South got what it deserved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not quite.  If they had gotten what they deserved the leaders of the Confederacy would have all been hanged as traitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many southern folks learned the wrong lessons from the Civil War.  Had we hanged the leaders as traitors then they might have understood that the question of secession is settled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Discombobulated, you state.....
> *"Many southern folks learned the wrong lessons from the Civil War.  Had we hanged the leaders as traitors then they might have understood that the question of secession is settled."
> Is YOUR U.S. not a nation of laws????
> Our Southern leaders could not have legally been hanged as traitors, because they were NOT BY DEFINITION TRAITORS.
> Under Article III,Section 3, of the Constitution,any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution.
> Here YOU MUST RETURN TO THE FIRST CAUSE...
> There was, nor is an Article within your 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, or amendment thereto that states that secession is an illegal act. Therefore when the Southern States seceded, the citizens thereof, were NO LONGER U.S. CITIZENS, hence a NON citizen cannot commit treason against a country in which he is not a citizen.*
Click to expand...


Lincoln's worst flaw was being too generous with traitors.   Jefferson Davis, his entire cabinet, and every officer who betrayed their oath to the United States of America should have been hanged.  Had Lincoln's successor not been so diligent about carrying out his plans for post war reconciliation the traitors might have gotten real justice instead of being lionized as heroes.


----------



## Discombobulated

The Confederacy never had any legal legitimacy, it was an illegal political and military entity with no diplomatic recognition by any nation.   And there continues to be no constitutionally sanctioned provision for secession.  Any arguments to the contrary lack the necessary substance to validate their premise.


----------



## James Everett

Discombobulated said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was not headed for extinction in the near future.
> 
> The slaves of Cuba and Brazil were decades from liberty in 1860.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how slavery could have ended peacefully?  War was inevitable because the slave holders would never have compromised, they held political and economic power.    If it were up to Confederates slavery never would have ended, they'd still be claiming the right to fight for their freedom to preserve slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Disbo,
> That is a gratuitous asertion backed by nothing more than your attempt to gain a moral superior position, which looking back on what the U.S. government did in its extermination of the Native American Indian, You cannot possibly hold that position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have absolutely no idea what Indians have to do with slavery and secession.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what slavery has to do with the legality of secession either, yet you keep throwing it in the conversation, I can only assume you are  attempting to divert from the legal issue, (which is the only relevant issue concerning secession), by introducing slavery in a feeble attempt at gaining the distorted view that Northerners hold some sort of moral superiority, therefore your governments extermination practices against the Native American Indian becomes relevant in the moral discussion that YOU introduced. Stick to the only relevant issue of the legality of secession, and you will not be required to defend your government concerning the Native American Indian. The author of the article which spawned this thread complained that his article was not about the legality of secession, however he introduced it when he falsely charged the Southerners of "insurrection". In doing so he entered the legal question concerning insurrection to which I posted the definition thereof, and gave proof that there was NO insurrection from the Southerners, yet clearly there was an insurrection by Lincoln and the Northerners, as they were in rebellion to the lawful authority of YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutions' tenth amendment.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James Everett said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Southern leaders would not accept constitutional, electoral procedure.
> 
> South Carolina had seceded months before Lincoln was inaugurated.
> 
> The CSA fired on US ships under Buchanan and Lincoln's administrations.
> 
> No where does the 10th Amendment, much less the Constitution, permit states to secede.
> 
> Slavery was well off and protected, with 90% of the economy vested directed and indirectly in the cotton empire.
> 
> Southerners could (1) no longer stand being called immoral, and (2) not live on an equal basis with the slaves.  They are much like our far right conservatives.
> 
> The Old South deserved to die.
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey,
> You write....
> "The CSA fired on US ships under Buchanan and Lincoln's administrations."
> *Buchanan attempted to send a supply ship to the Yankee soldiers at Fort
> Sumter, In order to reach Fort Sumter, that supply ship would violate the sovereign State of South Carolina's territorial waters in CHARLESTON HARBOR: The invasion of South Carolina/CHARLESTON HARBOR by this supply ship was an act of War, when the U.S. was forbidden to enter South Carolina's territorial waters. A U.S. Ship cannot simply waltz into any Harbor in the world if the Country wherein the harbor lies forbids its entrance. Such would constitute an act of War, this is why today, if a U.S. Air Force plane enters Russian airspace it will likely be met with force and be shot down.
> Next you state....*
> "No where does the 10th Amendment, much less the Constitution, permit states to secede."
> The simple fact that YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. Constitution does not address the subject of secession, means that it is a POWER reserved by each State INDIVIDUALLY....READ THE TENTH AMENDMENT....
> "*The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people*."
> 
> *JAKE STARKEY, You also state.....*
> "Southerners could (1) no longer stand being called immoral, and (2) not live on an equal basis with the slaves.  They are much like our far right conservatives."
> *How about I ask you a question here to show your hypocrisy....
> Could the U.S. stand to live on an equal basis with the Native American Indian in 1860?
> How were the free Slaves in the North Treated? Or the Irish for that matter? Were they treated as equals?
> The reason I ask is that I am confused when I read these Northern States Jim Crow laws....*
> *Pennsylvania*
> 1869: Education [Statute] Black children prohibited from attending Pittsburgh schools.
> 1956: Adoption [Statute] Petition must state race or color of adopting parents.
> 
> *Rhode Island*
> 1872: Miscegenation [State Code] Prohibited intermarriage. Penalty: $1,000 fine, or up to six months' imprisonment.
> 
> *
> 
> Ohio*
> Enacted a miscegenation statute in 1877 and a school segregation law in 1878. Segregation of public facilities was barred in 1884
> * Illinois*
> 1927: Housing [Municipal Code]
> Chicago adopted racially restrictive housing covenants beginning in 1927.
> 
> *Indiana*
> Enacted seven Jim Crow laws in the areas of education and miscegenation between 1869 and 1952.
Click to expand...


South Caroina had no sovereign authority to resist federal travel missions to federal installations, which had been ceded decades earlier by South Carolina to the national government.  South Carolina committed an act of violent treason firing on Ft. Sumter.

The false equivalency is noted of comparing the bad treatment of First Peoples or Irish or other despised people in the North to Negro Chattel slaves. None of the excuses slavery.

Try this a normal history class in college and you will fail the assignment.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James Everett said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Read the OP, I assure you it's quite thorough, though not as thorough as it could be because I ran into the character limit in the place it was originally posted.
> 
> 
> 
> The op is a piece of crap, it makes incorrect assertions, and never addresses the legality of secession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can address that issue for you right now:  There never was any legal basis for secession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Discombobulated, there is no legal basis to stop a state from seceding, that's the point. If there is no law established making something illegal, then it is most certainly legal. The tenth amendment covers that issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again......or rather still.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I am right and you know it, As I have challenged.....Cite the law, Article within your 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, or amendment thereto that states that secession is an illegal act.  You simply stating "Wrong" does NOT make it so.
Click to expand...


Your stating you are "Right" is laughable.  Point to the U. S. Constitution or federal law that permits a state to secede.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James Everett said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh..you don't want to talk about the war of northern aggression any more...now you want to quote the preamble....
> Collapse, partitioning and reconstruction, ravi.
> Corrections will be made.
> 
> 
> 
> You asked a question and didn't like the answer. The South got what it deserved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not quite.  If they had gotten what they deserved the leaders of the Confederacy would have all been hanged as traitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many southern folks learned the wrong lessons from the Civil War.  Had we hanged the leaders as traitors then they might have understood that the question of secession is settled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Discombobulated, you state.....
> *"Many southern folks learned the wrong lessons from the Civil War.  Had we hanged the leaders as traitors then they might have understood that the question of secession is settled."
> Is YOUR U.S. not a nation of laws????
> Our Southern leaders could not have legally been hanged as traitors, because they were NOT BY DEFINITION TRAITORS.
> Under Article III,Section 3, of the Constitution,any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution.
> Here YOU MUST RETURN TO THE FIRST CAUSE...
> There was, nor is an Article within your 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, or amendment thereto that states that secession is an illegal act. Therefore when the Southern States seceded, the citizens thereof, were NO LONGER U.S. CITIZENS, hence a NON citizen cannot commit treason against a country in which he is not a citizen.*
Click to expand...

They were traitors because, since they had no lawful authority to secede, they violated constitutional, electoral process; they stole federal property; they levied war on the US.  The leaders legally could have been summarily executed.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James Everett said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was not headed for extinction in the near future.
> 
> The slaves of Cuba and Brazil were decades from liberty in 1860.
> 
> 
> 
> JAKESTARKEY, You state....
> *"The slaves of Cuba and Brazil were decades from liberty in 1860."
> Why did the U.S. not continue its crusade to end slavery by invading Cuba and Brazil?*
Click to expand...

They were sovereign nations, and the CSA was not.  The Civil War, although its the root cause was American chattel slavery, was no moral crusade until November 1862, which was aimed at suppressing the rebellious organizations in the Union

Your false equivalence of comparing Negro oppression with the oppression of other despised populations in America is noted and rejected.


----------



## JakeStarkey

All of James' points have been noted and easily refuted.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Southern leaders would not accept constitutional, electoral procedure.
> 
> South Carolina had seceded months before Lincoln was inaugurated.
> 
> The CSA fired on US ships under Buchanan and Lincoln's administrations.
> 
> No where does the 10th Amendment, much less the Constitution, permit states to secede.
> 
> Slavery was well off and protected, with 90% of the economy vested directed and indirectly in the cotton empire.
> 
> Southerners could (1) no longer stand being called immoral, and (2) not live on an equal basis with the slaves.  They are much like our far right conservatives.
> 
> The Old South deserved to die.
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey,
> You write....
> "The CSA fired on US ships under Buchanan and Lincoln's administrations."
> *Buchanan attempted to send a supply ship to the Yankee soldiers at Fort
> Sumter, In order to reach Fort Sumter, that supply ship would violate the sovereign State of South Carolina's territorial waters in CHARLESTON HARBOR: The invasion of South Carolina/CHARLESTON HARBOR by this supply ship was an act of War, when the U.S. was forbidden to enter South Carolina's territorial waters. A U.S. Ship cannot simply waltz into any Harbor in the world if the Country wherein the harbor lies forbids its entrance. Such would constitute an act of War, this is why today, if a U.S. Air Force plane enters Russian airspace it will likely be met with force and be shot down.
> Next you state....*
> "No where does the 10th Amendment, much less the Constitution, permit states to secede."
> The simple fact that YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. Constitution does not address the subject of secession, means that it is a POWER reserved by each State INDIVIDUALLY....READ THE TENTH AMENDMENT....
> "*The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people*."
> 
> *JAKE STARKEY, You also state.....*
> "Southerners could (1) no longer stand being called immoral, and (2) not live on an equal basis with the slaves.  They are much like our far right conservatives."
> *How about I ask you a question here to show your hypocrisy....
> Could the U.S. stand to live on an equal basis with the Native American Indian in 1860?
> How were the free Slaves in the North Treated? Or the Irish for that matter? Were they treated as equals?
> The reason I ask is that I am confused when I read these Northern States Jim Crow laws....*
> *Pennsylvania*
> 1869: Education [Statute] Black children prohibited from attending Pittsburgh schools.
> 1956: Adoption [Statute] Petition must state race or color of adopting parents.
> 
> *Rhode Island*
> 1872: Miscegenation [State Code] Prohibited intermarriage. Penalty: $1,000 fine, or up to six months' imprisonment.
> 
> *
> 
> Ohio*
> Enacted a miscegenation statute in 1877 and a school segregation law in 1878. Segregation of public facilities was barred in 1884
> * Illinois*
> 1927: Housing [Municipal Code]
> Chicago adopted racially restrictive housing covenants beginning in 1927.
> 
> *Indiana*
> Enacted seven Jim Crow laws in the areas of education and miscegenation between 1869 and 1952.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> South Caroina had no sovereign authority to resist federal travel missions to federal installations, which had been ceded decades earlier by South Carolina to the national government.  South Carolina committed an act of violent treason firing on Ft. Sumter.
> 
> The false equivalency is noted of comparing the bad treatment of First Peoples or Irish or other despised people in the North to Negro Chattel slaves. None of the excuses slavery.
> 
> Try this a normal history class in college and you will fail the assignment.
Click to expand...

Jake starkly,
South Carolina legally seceded from the union, hence it's citizens were no longer u.s.citizens, therefore could not be guilty of treason. And while the U.S. May have owned the shoal on which Sumter sat, they did not own the territorial waters around the Fort, therefore had no lawful access to it, once South Carolina ceased its membership status. As for Your ancestors, and your  governments extermination practices against the Native American Indian, you introduced the debate over morals in a attempt to divert from the legality if secession, therefore it is an open debate on morals at this point. I am sorry if you are uncomfortable defending your government and your ancestors immorality. We can stick to the legal issue of secession if you wish. Of course that is up to you.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James, your assertion is false, cannot be substantiated in law and fact, and the South was lawfully executed by the South.  Only by the mercy and grace of the US leaders were the CSA leaders not executed.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> All of James' points have been noted and easily refuted.


JakeStarkey, you write....."All of James' points have been noted and easily refuted."
Sir, not one of my points have been refuted, but rather met with very lame gratuitous assertions presented without factual evidence. I have defeated every one of your pseudo intellectual Yankee partners using facts, truth, and evidence thereof. Anyone who witnesses this thread can see that. You have yet even days after the deadline I posted, have yet to cite the law that states that secession is an unlawful or illegal act.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> James, your assertion is false, cannot be substantiated in law and fact, and the South was lawfully executed by the South.  Only by the mercy and grace of the US leaders were the CSA leaders not executed.


I have substantiated my assertion using the law time and again, READ the tenth amendment! You however have yet to cite the law that states that secession is an unlawful or illegal act. Please do so now! The fact that you cannot is why I continue to smile.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Your evidence is flawed, and your assertions cannot be substantiated satisfactorily.

Smile all you want at the F you have earned.  You are simply witless.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was not headed for extinction in the near future.
> 
> The slaves of Cuba and Brazil were decades from liberty in 1860.
> 
> 
> 
> JAKESTARKEY, You state....
> *"The slaves of Cuba and Brazil were decades from liberty in 1860."
> Why did the U.S. not continue its crusade to end slavery by invading Cuba and Brazil?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were sovereign nations, and the CSA was not.  The Civil War, although its the root cause was American chattel slavery, was no moral crusade until November 1862, which was aimed at suppressing the rebellious organizations in the Union
> 
> Your false equivalence of comparing Negro oppression with the oppression of other despised populations in America is noted and rejected.
Click to expand...

Each Confederate was a sovereign nation. I have posted several times that rebellion means to go against lawful authority, yet you have yet to cite any lawful authority that states that secession is an illegal or unlawful act. Hence you are posting fiction. It is you who keep introducing morality in a legal discussion, therefore you cannot reject moral equivelence.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are acting liking a mindless chattering chipmunk.

No, the states were not sovereign.  Once entering the Union, which was indivisible except by joint consent, the states were subject to federal law.  In no way, shape, or form did federalism recognize the several states equal to the national government.

You may chatter all you want, but your argument always fails here as elsewhere.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> Your evidence is flawed, and your assertions cannot be substantiated satisfactorily.
> 
> Smile all you want at the F you have earned.  You are simply witless.


You state that the truth and evidence that I have posted is flawed? Please show how any of it is flawed. You simply reject these truths that I have posted because you reject the truth. The truth is that you and your pseudo intellectual Yankee brothers have been defeated by the truth, therefore all that is left to you is to reject the truth.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James, you keep repeating your failed positions.  You may call false true or light dark, yet that changes nothing.

You have been p'wnd in your own thread.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> You are acting liking a mindless chattering chipmunk.
> 
> No, the states were not sovereign.  Once entering the Union, which was indivisible except by joint consent, the states were subject to federal law.  In no way, shape, or form did federalism recognize the several states equal to the national government.
> 
> You may chatter all you want, but your argument always fails here as elsewhere.


Mr. Starkey,
You state.....
"
No, the states were not sovereign.  Once entering the Union, which was indivisible except by joint consent, the states were subject to federal law.  In no way, shape, or form did federalism recognize the several states equal to the national government.

You may chatter all you want, but your argument always fails here as elsewhere"
I will defeat to here once again using truth and factual evidence unlike you with your gratuitous assertions. Here are the words of one of YOUR own U.S. Presidents who stated it for YOU.....
James K Polk.....
*"To the States, respectively, or to the people" have been reserved "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States.* *Each State is a complete sovereignty within the sphere of its reserved powers. " 
Mr. Starkey, what does the tenth amendment state???
Let us review.....
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Continuing James K Polk's words....
"The Government of the Union, acting within the sphere of its delegated authority, is also a complete sovereignty.
To the Government of the United States has been intrusted the exclusive management of our foreign affairs*. *Beyond that it wields a few general enumerated powers*. It does not force reform on the States."
Those, Mr. JAKESTARKEY ARE THE FACTS!!!!


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> James, you keep repeating your failed positions.  You may call false true or light dark, yet that changes nothing.
> 
> You have been p'wnd in your own thread.


Again I am Smiling   I am posting facts backed by truth and have cited every fact. You Sir, have made nothing more than pathetic gratuitous assertions such as the one here....
"James, you keep repeating your failed positions.  You may call false true or light dark, yet that changes nothing."
I have asked you time and again to post your evidence which clearly you cannot.


----------



## James Everett

Awww, JakeStarkey don't go away, I was having such wonderful fun.


----------



## Unkotare

Texas v. White LII Legal Information Institute


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> Texas v. White LII Legal Information Institute


Unkotare, 
Texas v white was not a ase about secession, it was a case about ownership of bonds. The dicta has no bearing on the case of secession. Also even the opinion rendered was based on the perpetuity stated in the Articles of Confederation, S. a constitution that was no longer in effect, unless of course one considers Article  III, and then the legity of the ratification of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution comes into question. The SCOTUS opinions are limited to cases concerning the U.S. CONstitution, not the Articles.


----------



## Rogue 9

James Everett said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Texas v. White LII Legal Information Institute
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare,
> Texas v white was not a ase about secession, it was a case about ownership of bonds. The dicta has no bearing on the case of secession. Also even the opinion rendered was based on the perpetuity stated in the Articles of Confederation, S. a constitution that was no longer in effect, unless of course one considers Article  III, and then the legity of the ratification of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution comes into question. The SCOTUS opinions are limited to cases concerning the U.S. CONstitution, not the Articles.
Click to expand...

Please.  You base your entire argument on Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, which was not a case about secession; it was a case about land use rights for building a canal.  Your grounds for rejection of Texas v. White also invalidates your own premise if applied evenly.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James is simply loony; his material is not new or relevant; but he is fun to watch on his hamster wheel, spinning and spinning and spinning.


----------



## Discombobulated

James Everett said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was not headed for extinction in the near future.
> 
> The slaves of Cuba and Brazil were decades from liberty in 1860.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how slavery could have ended peacefully?  War was inevitable because the slave holders would never have compromised, they held political and economic power.    If it were up to Confederates slavery never would have ended, they'd still be claiming the right to fight for their freedom to preserve slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Disbo,
> That is a gratuitous asertion backed by nothing more than your attempt to gain a moral superior position, which looking back on what the U.S. government did in its extermination of the Native American Indian, You cannot possibly hold that position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have absolutely no idea what Indians have to do with slavery and secession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no idea what slavery has to do with the legality of secession either, yet you keep throwing it in the conversation, I can only assume you are  attempting to divert from the legal issue, (which is the only relevant issue concerning secession), by introducing slavery in a feeble attempt at gaining the distorted view that Northerners hold some sort of moral superiority, therefore your governments extermination practices against the Native American Indian becomes relevant in the moral discussion that YOU introduced. Stick to the only relevant issue of the legality of secession, and you will not be required to defend your government concerning the Native American Indian. The author of the article which spawned this thread complained that his article was not about the legality of secession, however he introduced it when he falsely charged the Southerners of "insurrection". In doing so he entered the legal question concerning insurrection to which I posted the definition thereof, and gave proof that there was NO insurrection from the Southerners, yet clearly there was an insurrection by Lincoln and the Northerners, as they were in rebellion to the lawful authority of YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutions' tenth amendment.
Click to expand...


Again, you have failed completely to substantiate your premise.   There exist no constitutionally legal basis for secession.  End of story.


----------



## James Everett

Rogue 9 said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Texas v. White LII Legal Information Institute
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare,
> Texas v white was not a ase about secession, it was a case about ownership of bonds. The dicta has no bearing on the case of secession. Also even the opinion rendered was based on the perpetuity stated in the Articles of Confederation, S. a constitution that was no longer in effect, unless of course one considers Article  III, and then the legity of the ratification of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution comes into question. The SCOTUS opinions are limited to cases concerning the U.S. CONstitution, not the Articles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please.  You base your entire argument on Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, which was not a case about secession; it was a case about land use rights for building a canal.  Your grounds for rejection of Texas v. White also invalidates your own premise if applied evenly.
Click to expand...

Rogue9.
You state....
*"Please.  You base your entire argument on Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, which was not a case about secession; it was a case about land use rights for building a canal.  Your grounds for rejection of Texas v. White also invalidates your own premise if applied evenly."
Rogue9, we have already covered this once, and I apologize that I was unable to help you understand the first time, however, I will attempt again.
First, please read both cases so that you may grasp how Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, DOES PERTAIN TO STATES MUNICIPAL SOVEREIGNTY, AND THAT CASE WAS ENTIRELY ABOUT STATES MUNICIPAL SOVEREIGNTY AND THAT THE U.S. HELD NO SUCH MUNICIPAL SOVEREIGNTY WITHIN A DEFINED STATE. Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, YOUR SCOTUS DOES NOT CITE ANY OTHER SOURCE IN THAT CASE OTHER THAN THAT OF YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONSTITUTION IN THE RENDERING OF ITS OPINION.
The United States as a collective of States in union, cannot OWN OR HOLD MUNICIPAL JURISDICTION OVER ANY SOIL OUTSIDE THE 10 MILES SQUARE OF WASHINGTON DC, EXCEPT FOR TEMPORARY PURPOSES. YOUR SCOTUS cited.....Article I, section 8, clause 17 of YOUR 1787/1789  U.S. CONstitution in Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan.
Texas v White was a case concerning U.S. Bonds, NOT MUNICIPAL SOVEREIGNTY. 
Further....
U.S. SCOTUS Justice Chase places a clumsy weld between the old Articles of Confederation and the United State Constitution. He notes that the Union "received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.''
He then attempts to tie the Articles to the Constitution but in so doing contradicts himself: 
"when these Articles were found to be inadequate . . . the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.'"

Chase is implying that somehow a portion of the Articles survived the ratification of the Constitution. Yet this introduces another contradiction: 
If the Articles were "perpetual" then how could they have been replaced by the Constitution? 
Are the Articles still in force? Are they in full force, or did only two words -- "be perpetual" -- survive?

These questions take on a new dimension when we consider that Texas was never a party to the Articles; by the time Texas joined the Union the Articles had been replaced by the Constitution. If Texas was somehow bound by the 'perpetual' Articles of Confederation, could it then secede from the Union formed by the Constitution but remain bound to the other states by the Articles of Confederation?
 Salmon P Chase was a U.S. Senator from Ohio and the 23rd Governor of Ohio; as U.S. Treasury Secretary under President Abraham Lincoln; and as the sixth Chief Justice of the United States, hardly one to even be considered as one who held a conflict of interest. 
Rogue9, I hope this serves to educate you on this subject.
Thanks, for your post.  You may also find more truth at CSAgov.org


*


----------



## James Everett

Discombobulated said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was not headed for extinction in the near future.
> 
> The slaves of Cuba and Brazil were decades from liberty in 1860.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how slavery could have ended peacefully?  War was inevitable because the slave holders would never have compromised, they held political and economic power.    If it were up to Confederates slavery never would have ended, they'd still be claiming the right to fight for their freedom to preserve slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Disbo,
> That is a gratuitous asertion backed by nothing more than your attempt to gain a moral superior position, which looking back on what the U.S. government did in its extermination of the Native American Indian, You cannot possibly hold that position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have absolutely no idea what Indians have to do with slavery and secession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no idea what slavery has to do with the legality of secession either, yet you keep throwing it in the conversation, I can only assume you are  attempting to divert from the legal issue, (which is the only relevant issue concerning secession), by introducing slavery in a feeble attempt at gaining the distorted view that Northerners hold some sort of moral superiority, therefore your governments extermination practices against the Native American Indian becomes relevant in the moral discussion that YOU introduced. Stick to the only relevant issue of the legality of secession, and you will not be required to defend your government concerning the Native American Indian. The author of the article which spawned this thread complained that his article was not about the legality of secession, however he introduced it when he falsely charged the Southerners of "insurrection". In doing so he entered the legal question concerning insurrection to which I posted the definition thereof, and gave proof that there was NO insurrection from the Southerners, yet clearly there was an insurrection by Lincoln and the Northerners, as they were in rebellion to the lawful authority of YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutions' tenth amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you have failed completely to substantiate your premise.   There exist no constitutionally legal basis for secession.  End of story.
Click to expand...

*Diccombobulated....
I also apologize to you if in fact I have been posting examples of fact that are above your intellect.
The 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutional bases is in the Tenth Amendment thereof, which states....*.
*"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."*
*The simple fact that YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution enumerates nothing on the subject of secessio, means that it is a POWER reserved to each individual State, again...........
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Thanks for your post, and I hope this is not beyond your intellect as I have posted it this time around.
James Everett...
You may also find more fact and truth at..... CSAgov.org*


----------



## Discombobulated

James Everett said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how slavery could have ended peacefully?  War was inevitable because the slave holders would never have compromised, they held political and economic power.    If it were up to Confederates slavery never would have ended, they'd still be claiming the right to fight for their freedom to preserve slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Disbo,
> That is a gratuitous asertion backed by nothing more than your attempt to gain a moral superior position, which looking back on what the U.S. government did in its extermination of the Native American Indian, You cannot possibly hold that position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have absolutely no idea what Indians have to do with slavery and secession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no idea what slavery has to do with the legality of secession either, yet you keep throwing it in the conversation, I can only assume you are  attempting to divert from the legal issue, (which is the only relevant issue concerning secession), by introducing slavery in a feeble attempt at gaining the distorted view that Northerners hold some sort of moral superiority, therefore your governments extermination practices against the Native American Indian becomes relevant in the moral discussion that YOU introduced. Stick to the only relevant issue of the legality of secession, and you will not be required to defend your government concerning the Native American Indian. The author of the article which spawned this thread complained that his article was not about the legality of secession, however he introduced it when he falsely charged the Southerners of "insurrection". In doing so he entered the legal question concerning insurrection to which I posted the definition thereof, and gave proof that there was NO insurrection from the Southerners, yet clearly there was an insurrection by Lincoln and the Northerners, as they were in rebellion to the lawful authority of YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutions' tenth amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you have failed completely to substantiate your premise.   There exist no constitutionally legal basis for secession.  End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Diccombobulated....
> I also apologize to you if in fact I have been posting examples of fact that are above your intellect.
> The 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutional bases is in the Tenth Amendment thereof, which states....*.
> *"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
> The simple fact that YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution enumerates nothing on the subject of secessio, means that it is a POWER reserved to each individual State, again...........
> "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
> Thanks for your post, and I hope this is not beyond your intellect as I have posted it this time around.
> James Everett...
> You may also find more fact and truth at..... CSAgov.org*
Click to expand...


I am indeed privileged and honored to be educated by a constitutional scholar of your standing.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> James is simply loony; his material is not new or relevant; but he is fun to watch on his hamster wheel, spinning and spinning and spinning.


JakeStatrkey,
Thanks for your post, yet once again, you offer nothing but a child like intellect in your insults, and have yet to provide and facts wherein evidence is cited to support your claims.
Thank you for your posts.
Sincerely, James Everett.....
You may find actual truth backed by facts at CSAgov.org


----------



## James Everett

Discombobulated said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disbo,
> That is a gratuitous asertion backed by nothing more than your attempt to gain a moral superior position, which looking back on what the U.S. government did in its extermination of the Native American Indian, You cannot possibly hold that position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have absolutely no idea what Indians have to do with slavery and secession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no idea what slavery has to do with the legality of secession either, yet you keep throwing it in the conversation, I can only assume you are  attempting to divert from the legal issue, (which is the only relevant issue concerning secession), by introducing slavery in a feeble attempt at gaining the distorted view that Northerners hold some sort of moral superiority, therefore your governments extermination practices against the Native American Indian becomes relevant in the moral discussion that YOU introduced. Stick to the only relevant issue of the legality of secession, and you will not be required to defend your government concerning the Native American Indian. The author of the article which spawned this thread complained that his article was not about the legality of secession, however he introduced it when he falsely charged the Southerners of "insurrection". In doing so he entered the legal question concerning insurrection to which I posted the definition thereof, and gave proof that there was NO insurrection from the Southerners, yet clearly there was an insurrection by Lincoln and the Northerners, as they were in rebellion to the lawful authority of YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutions' tenth amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you have failed completely to substantiate your premise.   There exist no constitutionally legal basis for secession.  End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Diccombobulated....
> I also apologize to you if in fact I have been posting examples of fact that are above your intellect.
> The 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutional bases is in the Tenth Amendment thereof, which states....*.
> *"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
> The simple fact that YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution enumerates nothing on the subject of secessio, means that it is a POWER reserved to each individual State, again...........
> "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
> Thanks for your post, and I hope this is not beyond your intellect as I have posted it this time around.
> James Everett...
> You may also find more fact and truth at..... CSAgov.org*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am indeed privileged and honored to be educated by a constitutional scholar of your standing.
Click to expand...

*You are welcome!*


----------



## SmedlyButler

Rotagilla said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was far more than a slavery issue...........The deep divisions had been going on many issues way before it went to blows................Mostly on the South not having a voice..............The North had the large population and were Industrial, while the South relied on farming..........aka cotton..........with a much smaller population.............the South basically had no chance whatsoever in the House of Representatives...........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and that larger population was responsible for Lincoln's election as an entirely regional candidate in a three way race. Lincoln, Seward and Fremont were representing big northern businesses and lobbying for huge Federal subsidies for railroads and protectionist tariffs for the financial interests the Republican Party was formed to represent, and of course wanted to pass the costs burdens off mostly on the Southern states, for 'national improvements' they wouldn't benefit from at all economically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please.  In 1860 the South accounted for 75% of U.S. exports, all the slaves in the South were more monetarily valuable than all the railroads and Northern industry combined, and the tariff was at its lowest level since 1816.  The Slave Power had _enormous_ economic power, since free labor tends to produce gigantic profits.  Of course, then you have other problems.
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .and the North imposed laws that pissed off the South.  Secession was talked about in 1820..............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, in 1828, over the same reasons, higher taxes and tariffs that would fall very unequally on southerners. Before that secession was often a cry; the New England states threatened to secede several times before, and during, the War of 1812 for the same reasons; they felt *they* were carrying more than their share of the Federal tax burdens at the time, too. They were sniveling at the time that the Federal spending benefitted Virginia and the mid-Atlantic states instead of their own states.
> 
> We already know abolitionists didn't make up a majority of the Republican Party, and we already know the North had slave states, and we already know what the Republican Congresses and Senators wanted by what bills they concentrated on first, and none of them were about ' ending slavery n stuff'. Cherry pick  cites from grandiose, pompous, and self-serving political speeches all you want, they mean little or nothing about the true motivations of those making the laws, any more than they mean anything today; it was about money and getting rid of political obstacles to loot the Federal Treasury and carry pork back home, and get bribes from big business.
> 
> Need more evidence of Republican motivations? See the blatant corruption of the Reconstruction farce, the Black Codes in the North that prevented blacks from migrating to northern states, including Lincoln's own Illinois, after the war, along with the corruption and cronyism during the war itself in supplying the Federal armies, in the Johnson and Grant adminstrations. Also see Lincoln going against his own Cabinet in deliberately provoking the war over Fort Sumter, with only his Postmaster General appointee supporting that illegal action, the rest being opposed, including General Winfield Scott and Seward himself being opposed to that. Lincoln was going to go to war, no matter what; it was the only way to remove southern political opposition to the railroad bills, massive tariff increases, and 'Homestead Act' scams to support the railroads subsidies.
> 
> The war was over two divergent sets of wealthy financial interests and the political power exerted by those interests, and nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Reconstruction farce was overseen by Andrew Johnson, a Democrat.  You know, since Lincoln was shot and all.  Which was really too bad for the South; Lincoln openly favored a conciliatory policy and had the influence with Congress to get one; Johnson didn't and got run over by Congress.
> 
> "Provoking the war over Fort Sumter," is a laugh riot; there was already a war at that point.  That's kind of what it is when you bombard forts into submission.
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, like I'm about to waste my time arguing with a full blown kookanoodle.
> 
> From your website:
> 
> *'"The government for the Confederate States of America never surrendered to the United States of America and still exist in a state of forced exile. The C.S.A and its Citizens are currently under active occupation by a United States imposed national government system."*
> 
> **
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you will not discuss the legal issue with me, Paperview, you know you would lose. This will be a great disappointment  to your cheerleader Mr. STARKEY, all his hopes were tied up in you. Now YOUR U.S. Is suppose to be a nation of laws, yet we find your brothers unable to cite the law I have requested, as for you, you will need to do the same, and while you are at it please produce the documents wherein our CSA government was surrendered to YOUR U.S. Or a peace treaty signed between YOUR USA and OUR CSA. Without such documents your case is lost, now who really is the Kook here? A Nation of laws? Cite those laws, produce those documents, I am busy this week, therefore I give you until Friday 9 pm to produce your evidence of fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's cute.  What makes you think you're in any position to make demands?  Regardless, one doesn't make treaties with defeated rebels.  The Confederate States is a fictional entity, recognized by no country in the world nor by most of its own population - after all, I seriously doubt the slaves were in favor, to say nothing of the large Unionist pockets in Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama.
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> The south tried to peacefully and legally withdraw from the union.
> The south offered to pay for all federal installations on our property and to pay our share of the national debt at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Peacefully and legally my ass.  Tell Captain McGowan of the _Star of the West _or Major Anderson commanding Fort Sumter how peaceful that cannon fire was.
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lying POS lincoln wanted war, though.
> The declaration of independence...which lincoln supported...says;
> 
> _When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
> 
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, *Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.*_
> 
> Declaration of Independence
> 1776
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it also says - directly after where you stopped quoting, interestingly enough; I'm sure that was coincidental -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Declaration of Independence said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes*; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a *long train* of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--*Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies*; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A single Presidential election is quite transient, it's hard to argue Lincoln subjected the Slave Power to a "long train" of anything before he'd even been inaugurated, and the Slave Power certainly exhibited nothing resembling patient sufferance.  You will find no refuge for your cause in the Declaration.
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lying POS lincoln also said;
> _*Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can may revolutionize and make their own of so many of the territory as they inhabit."
> 
> 
> Abraham Lincoln
> Jan 12, 1848*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah.  But the Slave Power clearly didn't have the power.  QED.
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> In his first inaugural address he also said;
> 
> _Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that --
> 
> I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
> 
> Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
> 
> Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes._
> 
> 
> So the southerners who wanted to peacefully withdraw are called "traitors"....but that's just what the british called the colonists who wanted to peacefully separate from england...
> 
> Laugh...call names...make fun...mock...whatever you need to make yourself feel better...but southerners aren't over being invaded and having her citizens murdered, property burned, stolen or destroyed, infrastructure ruined any more than negroes are "over" slavery.
> 
> yet the north gloats and cheers the war criminal sherman and his "march to the sea"...it's ok...these things will all be corrected in time. This country won't last..and just like other nations that collapse in violence, old grudges will be resolved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Make your threats, they mean nothing to me.  Slavery was in no danger of being abolished in 1860 - the Slave Power brought that upon itself when it plunged the country into war when it was not allowed to dictate slavery upon territories that did not want it.  Fanaticism for slavery expansion elected Lincoln - he would not have succeeded if the Deep South hadn't walked out of the Democratic National Convention because it refused to adopt a platform plank guaranteeing slavery in the territories and nominated Breckinridge to undermine Stephen Douglas.  Really that was insane of them; Douglas was a true believer in Manifest Destiny ideology, and would gladly have conquered and made slave states of Cuba and as many Central American countries as he could lay the Army on.  The South chose rebellion and war; had they abided by the electoral process as they were Constitutionally obliged to do, slavery would have persevered for decades.  It was the war, a war fought by the Slave Power to expand slavery, that turned public sentiment in favor of abolition.
> 
> Some things are worth war; that was one of them.  In short:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The south tried to peacefully withdraw and go about our business...The lying POS lincoln wanted his war and sent troops to invade. Patriots always try to repel invaders.Take 1776 for instance...your double standard and anti south bias is glaringly obvious.
> You try to parse words and make up our own reality...I've posted the actual words of people involved at the time..not some message board propaganda...
> 
> lincoln then allowed his generals to wage war on civilians..murder, destruction of their property, businesses and infrastructure....and you guys are so proud of your murderous heritage and tell lies about and mock southerners.
> It's like if your wife asks for a divorce you think it would be ok to beat her up.
> 
> Hell, I suppose you're also ok with the u.s. nuking civilians..... twice..... in WWII. "murica..fuck yeah!"
> 
> Save all you excuse making and parsing of words. lincoln said what he said...the declaration of independence says what it says...type a wall of text and equivocations...try to re interpret history so it makes you feel better....you can't erase what was said.
> 
> Here let me refresh your memory with some real history...not your filtered, revisionist re interpretations;
> _
> 
> When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —*That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.*_
> 
> 
> Even lincoln thought the declaration of independence was a good idea...until he decided later to invade the south for exercising their legal rights to withdraw from the union.
> Situational ethics.
> 
> 
> *Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,— most sacred right—a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory as they inhabit.
> More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones.
> 
> A. Lincoln*
> in Congress 1848
> 
> 
> Here's what the lying POS said in his first inaugural address
> 
> *
> 
> Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that by the accession of a Republican Administration, their property, and their peace, and personal security, are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed, and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And more than this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves, and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:*
> 
> * Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."*
> 
> Now..if you want to continue the discussion based on what was actually said, proceed..if you just want a soapbox to chirp your anti southern anti democratic position from, just say so...don't try to corrupt history..People can read these words..you aren't fooling any of them.
> Funny...only northerners think the war of northern aggression was right and proper...
> 
> It's ok, though..past wrongs will be corrected.
> Collapse, partitioning and reconstruction are the next 2 phases this nation will go through....
Click to expand...



_"We hold these truths to be self-evident, *that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,* that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. *That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men*, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —*That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it," *_

You can't get any plainer language than that to defend the Federal Government's right to suppress the rebellion initiated by the South to insure the survival and expansion of the institution of slavery, an institution that denied these enumerated rights to a large segment of the population. It was not the Federal Government that was destructive of the ends outlined in the declaration, it was the Southern Slave Powers. As I said the language is plain, it takes no extraordinary powers of interpretation to read just one more founding document's denial of legitimacy for the South's actions.


----------



## James Everett

SmedlyButler said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was far more than a slavery issue...........The deep divisions had been going on many issues way before it went to blows................Mostly on the South not having a voice..............The North had the large population and were Industrial, while the South relied on farming..........aka cotton..........with a much smaller population.............the South basically had no chance whatsoever in the House of Representatives...........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and that larger population was responsible for Lincoln's election as an entirely regional candidate in a three way race. Lincoln, Seward and Fremont were representing big northern businesses and lobbying for huge Federal subsidies for railroads and protectionist tariffs for the financial interests the Republican Party was formed to represent, and of course wanted to pass the costs burdens off mostly on the Southern states, for 'national improvements' they wouldn't benefit from at all economically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please.  In 1860 the South accounted for 75% of U.S. exports, all the slaves in the South were more monetarily valuable than all the railroads and Northern industry combined, and the tariff was at its lowest level since 1816.  The Slave Power had _enormous_ economic power, since free labor tends to produce gigantic profits.  Of course, then you have other problems.
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .and the North imposed laws that pissed off the South.  Secession was talked about in 1820..............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, in 1828, over the same reasons, higher taxes and tariffs that would fall very unequally on southerners. Before that secession was often a cry; the New England states threatened to secede several times before, and during, the War of 1812 for the same reasons; they felt *they* were carrying more than their share of the Federal tax burdens at the time, too. They were sniveling at the time that the Federal spending benefitted Virginia and the mid-Atlantic states instead of their own states.
> 
> We already know abolitionists didn't make up a majority of the Republican Party, and we already know the North had slave states, and we already know what the Republican Congresses and Senators wanted by what bills they concentrated on first, and none of them were about ' ending slavery n stuff'. Cherry pick  cites from grandiose, pompous, and self-serving political speeches all you want, they mean little or nothing about the true motivations of those making the laws, any more than they mean anything today; it was about money and getting rid of political obstacles to loot the Federal Treasury and carry pork back home, and get bribes from big business.
> 
> Need more evidence of Republican motivations? See the blatant corruption of the Reconstruction farce, the Black Codes in the North that prevented blacks from migrating to northern states, including Lincoln's own Illinois, after the war, along with the corruption and cronyism during the war itself in supplying the Federal armies, in the Johnson and Grant adminstrations. Also see Lincoln going against his own Cabinet in deliberately provoking the war over Fort Sumter, with only his Postmaster General appointee supporting that illegal action, the rest being opposed, including General Winfield Scott and Seward himself being opposed to that. Lincoln was going to go to war, no matter what; it was the only way to remove southern political opposition to the railroad bills, massive tariff increases, and 'Homestead Act' scams to support the railroads subsidies.
> 
> The war was over two divergent sets of wealthy financial interests and the political power exerted by those interests, and nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Reconstruction farce was overseen by Andrew Johnson, a Democrat.  You know, since Lincoln was shot and all.  Which was really too bad for the South; Lincoln openly favored a conciliatory policy and had the influence with Congress to get one; Johnson didn't and got run over by Congress.
> 
> "Provoking the war over Fort Sumter," is a laugh riot; there was already a war at that point.  That's kind of what it is when you bombard forts into submission.
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, like I'm about to waste my time arguing with a full blown kookanoodle.
> 
> From your website:
> 
> *'"The government for the Confederate States of America never surrendered to the United States of America and still exist in a state of forced exile. The C.S.A and its Citizens are currently under active occupation by a United States imposed national government system."*
> 
> **
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you will not discuss the legal issue with me, Paperview, you know you would lose. This will be a great disappointment  to your cheerleader Mr. STARKEY, all his hopes were tied up in you. Now YOUR U.S. Is suppose to be a nation of laws, yet we find your brothers unable to cite the law I have requested, as for you, you will need to do the same, and while you are at it please produce the documents wherein our CSA government was surrendered to YOUR U.S. Or a peace treaty signed between YOUR USA and OUR CSA. Without such documents your case is lost, now who really is the Kook here? A Nation of laws? Cite those laws, produce those documents, I am busy this week, therefore I give you until Friday 9 pm to produce your evidence of fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's cute.  What makes you think you're in any position to make demands?  Regardless, one doesn't make treaties with defeated rebels.  The Confederate States is a fictional entity, recognized by no country in the world nor by most of its own population - after all, I seriously doubt the slaves were in favor, to say nothing of the large Unionist pockets in Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama.
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> The south tried to peacefully and legally withdraw from the union.
> The south offered to pay for all federal installations on our property and to pay our share of the national debt at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Peacefully and legally my ass.  Tell Captain McGowan of the _Star of the West _or Major Anderson commanding Fort Sumter how peaceful that cannon fire was.
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lying POS lincoln wanted war, though.
> The declaration of independence...which lincoln supported...says;
> 
> _When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
> 
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, *Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.*_
> 
> Declaration of Independence
> 1776
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it also says - directly after where you stopped quoting, interestingly enough; I'm sure that was coincidental -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Declaration of Independence said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes*; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a *long train* of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--*Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies*; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A single Presidential election is quite transient, it's hard to argue Lincoln subjected the Slave Power to a "long train" of anything before he'd even been inaugurated, and the Slave Power certainly exhibited nothing resembling patient sufferance.  You will find no refuge for your cause in the Declaration.
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lying POS lincoln also said;
> _*Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can may revolutionize and make their own of so many of the territory as they inhabit."
> 
> 
> Abraham Lincoln
> Jan 12, 1848*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah.  But the Slave Power clearly didn't have the power.  QED.
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> In his first inaugural address he also said;
> 
> _Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that --
> 
> I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
> 
> Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
> 
> Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes._
> 
> 
> So the southerners who wanted to peacefully withdraw are called "traitors"....but that's just what the british called the colonists who wanted to peacefully separate from england...
> 
> Laugh...call names...make fun...mock...whatever you need to make yourself feel better...but southerners aren't over being invaded and having her citizens murdered, property burned, stolen or destroyed, infrastructure ruined any more than negroes are "over" slavery.
> 
> yet the north gloats and cheers the war criminal sherman and his "march to the sea"...it's ok...these things will all be corrected in time. This country won't last..and just like other nations that collapse in violence, old grudges will be resolved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Make your threats, they mean nothing to me.  Slavery was in no danger of being abolished in 1860 - the Slave Power brought that upon itself when it plunged the country into war when it was not allowed to dictate slavery upon territories that did not want it.  Fanaticism for slavery expansion elected Lincoln - he would not have succeeded if the Deep South hadn't walked out of the Democratic National Convention because it refused to adopt a platform plank guaranteeing slavery in the territories and nominated Breckinridge to undermine Stephen Douglas.  Really that was insane of them; Douglas was a true believer in Manifest Destiny ideology, and would gladly have conquered and made slave states of Cuba and as many Central American countries as he could lay the Army on.  The South chose rebellion and war; had they abided by the electoral process as they were Constitutionally obliged to do, slavery would have persevered for decades.  It was the war, a war fought by the Slave Power to expand slavery, that turned public sentiment in favor of abolition.
> 
> Some things are worth war; that was one of them.  In short:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The south tried to peacefully withdraw and go about our business...The lying POS lincoln wanted his war and sent troops to invade. Patriots always try to repel invaders.Take 1776 for instance...your double standard and anti south bias is glaringly obvious.
> You try to parse words and make up our own reality...I've posted the actual words of people involved at the time..not some message board propaganda...
> 
> lincoln then allowed his generals to wage war on civilians..murder, destruction of their property, businesses and infrastructure....and you guys are so proud of your murderous heritage and tell lies about and mock southerners.
> It's like if your wife asks for a divorce you think it would be ok to beat her up.
> 
> Hell, I suppose you're also ok with the u.s. nuking civilians..... twice..... in WWII. "murica..fuck yeah!"
> 
> Save all you excuse making and parsing of words. lincoln said what he said...the declaration of independence says what it says...type a wall of text and equivocations...try to re interpret history so it makes you feel better....you can't erase what was said.
> 
> Here let me refresh your memory with some real history...not your filtered, revisionist re interpretations;
> _
> 
> When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —*That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.*_
> 
> 
> Even lincoln thought the declaration of independence was a good idea...until he decided later to invade the south for exercising their legal rights to withdraw from the union.
> Situational ethics.
> 
> 
> *Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,— most sacred right—a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory as they inhabit.
> More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones.
> 
> A. Lincoln*
> in Congress 1848
> 
> 
> Here's what the lying POS said in his first inaugural address
> 
> *
> 
> Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that by the accession of a Republican Administration, their property, and their peace, and personal security, are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed, and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And more than this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves, and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:*
> 
> * Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."*
> 
> Now..if you want to continue the discussion based on what was actually said, proceed..if you just want a soapbox to chirp your anti southern anti democratic position from, just say so...don't try to corrupt history..People can read these words..you aren't fooling any of them.
> Funny...only northerners think the war of northern aggression was right and proper...
> 
> It's ok, though..past wrongs will be corrected.
> Collapse, partitioning and reconstruction are the next 2 phases this nation will go through....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _"We hold these truths to be self-evident, *that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,* that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. *That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men*, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —*That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it," *_
> 
> You can't get any plainer language than that to defend the Federal Government's right to suppress the rebellion initiated by the South to insure the survival and expansion of the institution of slavery, an institution that denied these enumerated rights to a large segment of the population. It was not the Federal Government that was destructive of the ends outlined in the declaration, it was the Southern Slave Powers. As I said the language is plain, it takes no extraordinary powers of interpretation to read just one more founding document's denial of legitimacy for the South's actions.
Click to expand...

*SmedlyButler,
You are quoting the Declaration of Independence, NOT the 1787/1789 U.S.CONstitution or law. 
Again, as is always the case, the Yankee avoids the only relevant issue, that being the law, and tries to gain the moral high ground, which is not possible.
North, nor South was without blemish, Did women have the right of suffrage in 1860 in the North?
Was the Native American Indian not only denied these rights, but exterminated by your U.S. Government?
Need I list the Jim Crow laws in the Northern States again which denied these rights for nearly a hundred years after the occupation of our Southern Confederate States began?
Need I post the definition of "Rebellion" Every in post for the indoctrinated to see?
From Johnson's Dictionary of the English language 1755 edition......
ReBc'llion. n, f. [rtbellion, French;

rcbellio, Latin ; from rebel j 

Insurrection Against lawful authority.
Now PLEASE cite the Law, Article within YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, or amendment thereto that states that secession is an unlawful or illegal act.
If the U.S. was fighting to give equal rights...."Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" then why did they deny these same rights to the Native American Indian, the Women , and the Black man in the Northern States?
If indeed it was a crusade to end slavery in the U.S., then why was the North, the U.S. not pleased that with the secession of the Southern States slavery was ended in the U.S.? *


----------



## Unkotare

The wannabe rebel apologist is spinning himself into knots. Too funny.


----------



## Ravi

I wish he'd just start up another civil war but all he appears able to do is whine.


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> The wannabe rebel apologist is spinning himself into knots. Too funny.


*Unkotare,
You Yankee Pseudo intellectuals are so inept that it makes my job too easy.....
You state that.... 
"The wannabe rebel apologist is spinning himself into knots. Too funny"
First, I apologize for nothing, 
Second, TRUTH presented with irrefutable proof is in no way "spinning".
You, as the rest of your lel Yankee group, present nothing but childish rebuttal that mean nothing, such as you have just posted. I just sit and smile as you all continue your lil pathetic posts in response....
*


----------



## James Everett

Ravi said:


> I wish he'd just start up another civil war but all he appears able to do is whine.


*Ravi,
"If wishes were horses".
The Southern Confederate States, Me, nor the South need rise again, ALL WE NEED DO IS STAND AND WATCH YOUR U.S. FALL INTO ECONOMIC COLLAPSE JUST AS DID THE FAMOUS SOVIET UNION...( "EVIL EMPIRE").
NO NEED FOR WAR, AS PERPETUAL WARMONGERING IS YOUR GOVERNMENTS GAME.......*


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> The wannabe rebel apologist is spinning himself into knots. Too funny.


Unkotare
Whats with the doo and the eye patch???


----------



## Discombobulated

James Everett said:


> SmedlyButler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was far more than a slavery issue...........The deep divisions had been going on many issues way before it went to blows................Mostly on the South not having a voice..............The North had the large population and were Industrial, while the South relied on farming..........aka cotton..........with a much smaller population.............the South basically had no chance whatsoever in the House of Representatives...........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and that larger population was responsible for Lincoln's election as an entirely regional candidate in a three way race. Lincoln, Seward and Fremont were representing big northern businesses and lobbying for huge Federal subsidies for railroads and protectionist tariffs for the financial interests the Republican Party was formed to represent, and of course wanted to pass the costs burdens off mostly on the Southern states, for 'national improvements' they wouldn't benefit from at all economically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please.  In 1860 the South accounted for 75% of U.S. exports, all the slaves in the South were more monetarily valuable than all the railroads and Northern industry combined, and the tariff was at its lowest level since 1816.  The Slave Power had _enormous_ economic power, since free labor tends to produce gigantic profits.  Of course, then you have other problems.
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .and the North imposed laws that pissed off the South.  Secession was talked about in 1820..............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, in 1828, over the same reasons, higher taxes and tariffs that would fall very unequally on southerners. Before that secession was often a cry; the New England states threatened to secede several times before, and during, the War of 1812 for the same reasons; they felt *they* were carrying more than their share of the Federal tax burdens at the time, too. They were sniveling at the time that the Federal spending benefitted Virginia and the mid-Atlantic states instead of their own states.
> 
> We already know abolitionists didn't make up a majority of the Republican Party, and we already know the North had slave states, and we already know what the Republican Congresses and Senators wanted by what bills they concentrated on first, and none of them were about ' ending slavery n stuff'. Cherry pick  cites from grandiose, pompous, and self-serving political speeches all you want, they mean little or nothing about the true motivations of those making the laws, any more than they mean anything today; it was about money and getting rid of political obstacles to loot the Federal Treasury and carry pork back home, and get bribes from big business.
> 
> Need more evidence of Republican motivations? See the blatant corruption of the Reconstruction farce, the Black Codes in the North that prevented blacks from migrating to northern states, including Lincoln's own Illinois, after the war, along with the corruption and cronyism during the war itself in supplying the Federal armies, in the Johnson and Grant adminstrations. Also see Lincoln going against his own Cabinet in deliberately provoking the war over Fort Sumter, with only his Postmaster General appointee supporting that illegal action, the rest being opposed, including General Winfield Scott and Seward himself being opposed to that. Lincoln was going to go to war, no matter what; it was the only way to remove southern political opposition to the railroad bills, massive tariff increases, and 'Homestead Act' scams to support the railroads subsidies.
> 
> The war was over two divergent sets of wealthy financial interests and the political power exerted by those interests, and nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Reconstruction farce was overseen by Andrew Johnson, a Democrat.  You know, since Lincoln was shot and all.  Which was really too bad for the South; Lincoln openly favored a conciliatory policy and had the influence with Congress to get one; Johnson didn't and got run over by Congress.
> 
> "Provoking the war over Fort Sumter," is a laugh riot; there was already a war at that point.  That's kind of what it is when you bombard forts into submission.
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, like I'm about to waste my time arguing with a full blown kookanoodle.
> 
> From your website:
> 
> *'"The government for the Confederate States of America never surrendered to the United States of America and still exist in a state of forced exile. The C.S.A and its Citizens are currently under active occupation by a United States imposed national government system."*
> 
> **
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you will not discuss the legal issue with me, Paperview, you know you would lose. This will be a great disappointment  to your cheerleader Mr. STARKEY, all his hopes were tied up in you. Now YOUR U.S. Is suppose to be a nation of laws, yet we find your brothers unable to cite the law I have requested, as for you, you will need to do the same, and while you are at it please produce the documents wherein our CSA government was surrendered to YOUR U.S. Or a peace treaty signed between YOUR USA and OUR CSA. Without such documents your case is lost, now who really is the Kook here? A Nation of laws? Cite those laws, produce those documents, I am busy this week, therefore I give you until Friday 9 pm to produce your evidence of fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's cute.  What makes you think you're in any position to make demands?  Regardless, one doesn't make treaties with defeated rebels.  The Confederate States is a fictional entity, recognized by no country in the world nor by most of its own population - after all, I seriously doubt the slaves were in favor, to say nothing of the large Unionist pockets in Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama.
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> The south tried to peacefully and legally withdraw from the union.
> The south offered to pay for all federal installations on our property and to pay our share of the national debt at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Peacefully and legally my ass.  Tell Captain McGowan of the _Star of the West _or Major Anderson commanding Fort Sumter how peaceful that cannon fire was.
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lying POS lincoln wanted war, though.
> The declaration of independence...which lincoln supported...says;
> 
> _When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
> 
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, *Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.*_
> 
> Declaration of Independence
> 1776
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it also says - directly after where you stopped quoting, interestingly enough; I'm sure that was coincidental -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Declaration of Independence said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes*; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a *long train* of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--*Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies*; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A single Presidential election is quite transient, it's hard to argue Lincoln subjected the Slave Power to a "long train" of anything before he'd even been inaugurated, and the Slave Power certainly exhibited nothing resembling patient sufferance.  You will find no refuge for your cause in the Declaration.
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lying POS lincoln also said;
> _*Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can may revolutionize and make their own of so many of the territory as they inhabit."
> 
> 
> Abraham Lincoln
> Jan 12, 1848*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah.  But the Slave Power clearly didn't have the power.  QED.
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> In his first inaugural address he also said;
> 
> _Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that --
> 
> I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
> 
> Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
> 
> Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes._
> 
> 
> So the southerners who wanted to peacefully withdraw are called "traitors"....but that's just what the british called the colonists who wanted to peacefully separate from england...
> 
> Laugh...call names...make fun...mock...whatever you need to make yourself feel better...but southerners aren't over being invaded and having her citizens murdered, property burned, stolen or destroyed, infrastructure ruined any more than negroes are "over" slavery.
> 
> yet the north gloats and cheers the war criminal sherman and his "march to the sea"...it's ok...these things will all be corrected in time. This country won't last..and just like other nations that collapse in violence, old grudges will be resolved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Make your threats, they mean nothing to me.  Slavery was in no danger of being abolished in 1860 - the Slave Power brought that upon itself when it plunged the country into war when it was not allowed to dictate slavery upon territories that did not want it.  Fanaticism for slavery expansion elected Lincoln - he would not have succeeded if the Deep South hadn't walked out of the Democratic National Convention because it refused to adopt a platform plank guaranteeing slavery in the territories and nominated Breckinridge to undermine Stephen Douglas.  Really that was insane of them; Douglas was a true believer in Manifest Destiny ideology, and would gladly have conquered and made slave states of Cuba and as many Central American countries as he could lay the Army on.  The South chose rebellion and war; had they abided by the electoral process as they were Constitutionally obliged to do, slavery would have persevered for decades.  It was the war, a war fought by the Slave Power to expand slavery, that turned public sentiment in favor of abolition.
> 
> Some things are worth war; that was one of them.  In short:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The south tried to peacefully withdraw and go about our business...The lying POS lincoln wanted his war and sent troops to invade. Patriots always try to repel invaders.Take 1776 for instance...your double standard and anti south bias is glaringly obvious.
> You try to parse words and make up our own reality...I've posted the actual words of people involved at the time..not some message board propaganda...
> 
> lincoln then allowed his generals to wage war on civilians..murder, destruction of their property, businesses and infrastructure....and you guys are so proud of your murderous heritage and tell lies about and mock southerners.
> It's like if your wife asks for a divorce you think it would be ok to beat her up.
> 
> Hell, I suppose you're also ok with the u.s. nuking civilians..... twice..... in WWII. "murica..fuck yeah!"
> 
> Save all you excuse making and parsing of words. lincoln said what he said...the declaration of independence says what it says...type a wall of text and equivocations...try to re interpret history so it makes you feel better....you can't erase what was said.
> 
> Here let me refresh your memory with some real history...not your filtered, revisionist re interpretations;
> _
> 
> When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —*That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.*_
> 
> 
> Even lincoln thought the declaration of independence was a good idea...until he decided later to invade the south for exercising their legal rights to withdraw from the union.
> Situational ethics.
> 
> 
> *Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,— most sacred right—a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory as they inhabit.
> More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones.
> 
> A. Lincoln*
> in Congress 1848
> 
> 
> Here's what the lying POS said in his first inaugural address
> 
> *
> 
> Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that by the accession of a Republican Administration, their property, and their peace, and personal security, are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed, and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And more than this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves, and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:*
> 
> * Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."*
> 
> Now..if you want to continue the discussion based on what was actually said, proceed..if you just want a soapbox to chirp your anti southern anti democratic position from, just say so...don't try to corrupt history..People can read these words..you aren't fooling any of them.
> Funny...only northerners think the war of northern aggression was right and proper...
> 
> It's ok, though..past wrongs will be corrected.
> Collapse, partitioning and reconstruction are the next 2 phases this nation will go through....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _"We hold these truths to be self-evident, *that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,* that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. *That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men*, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —*That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it," *_
> 
> You can't get any plainer language than that to defend the Federal Government's right to suppress the rebellion initiated by the South to insure the survival and expansion of the institution of slavery, an institution that denied these enumerated rights to a large segment of the population. It was not the Federal Government that was destructive of the ends outlined in the declaration, it was the Southern Slave Powers. As I said the language is plain, it takes no extraordinary powers of interpretation to read just one more founding document's denial of legitimacy for the South's actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *SmedlyButler,
> You are quoting the Declaration of Independence, NOT the 1787/1789 U.S.CONstitution or law.
> Again, as is always the case, the Yankee avoids the only relevant issue, that being the law, and tries to gain the moral high ground, which is not possible.
> North, nor South was without blemish, Did women have the right of suffrage in 1860 in the North?
> Was the Native American Indian not only denied these rights, but exterminated by your U.S. Government?
> Need I list the Jim Crow laws in the Northern States again which denied these rights for nearly a hundred years after the occupation of our Southern Confederate States began?
> Need I post the definition of "Rebellion" Every in post for the indoctrinated to see?
> From Johnson's Dictionary of the English language 1755 edition......
> ReBc'llion. n, f. [rtbellion, French;
> 
> rcbellio, Latin ; from rebel j
> 
> Insurrection Against lawful authority.
> Now PLEASE cite the Law, Article within YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, or amendment thereto that states that secession is an unlawful or illegal act.
> If the U.S. was fighting to give equal rights...."Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" then why did they deny these same rights to the Native American Indian, the Women , and the Black man in the Northern States?
> If indeed it was a crusade to end slavery in the U.S., then why was the North, the U.S. not pleased that with the secession of the Southern States slavery was ended in the U.S.? *
Click to expand...


Let's pursue your reasoning a little further and find out more about this principle of secession.   Following your logic it should perfectly legal for counties to secede from states.   Would it be OK with you if some counties in Texas voted to secede and rejoin Mexico?


----------



## rdean

Today's Republicans believe that Lincoln must have been a confederate somehow and white conservatives fought to free the slaves.
Course, their beliefs on science and education also leave a lot to be desired.


----------



## James Everett

Discombobulated said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmedlyButler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and that larger population was responsible for Lincoln's election as an entirely regional candidate in a three way race. Lincoln, Seward and Fremont were representing big northern businesses and lobbying for huge Federal subsidies for railroads and protectionist tariffs for the financial interests the Republican Party was formed to represent, and of course wanted to pass the costs burdens off mostly on the Southern states, for 'national improvements' they wouldn't benefit from at all economically.
> 
> 
> 
> Please.  In 1860 the South accounted for 75% of U.S. exports, all the slaves in the South were more monetarily valuable than all the railroads and Northern industry combined, and the tariff was at its lowest level since 1816.  The Slave Power had _enormous_ economic power, since free labor tends to produce gigantic profits.  Of course, then you have other problems.
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, in 1828, over the same reasons, higher taxes and tariffs that would fall very unequally on southerners. Before that secession was often a cry; the New England states threatened to secede several times before, and during, the War of 1812 for the same reasons; they felt *they* were carrying more than their share of the Federal tax burdens at the time, too. They were sniveling at the time that the Federal spending benefitted Virginia and the mid-Atlantic states instead of their own states.
> 
> We already know abolitionists didn't make up a majority of the Republican Party, and we already know the North had slave states, and we already know what the Republican Congresses and Senators wanted by what bills they concentrated on first, and none of them were about ' ending slavery n stuff'. Cherry pick  cites from grandiose, pompous, and self-serving political speeches all you want, they mean little or nothing about the true motivations of those making the laws, any more than they mean anything today; it was about money and getting rid of political obstacles to loot the Federal Treasury and carry pork back home, and get bribes from big business.
> 
> Need more evidence of Republican motivations? See the blatant corruption of the Reconstruction farce, the Black Codes in the North that prevented blacks from migrating to northern states, including Lincoln's own Illinois, after the war, along with the corruption and cronyism during the war itself in supplying the Federal armies, in the Johnson and Grant adminstrations. Also see Lincoln going against his own Cabinet in deliberately provoking the war over Fort Sumter, with only his Postmaster General appointee supporting that illegal action, the rest being opposed, including General Winfield Scott and Seward himself being opposed to that. Lincoln was going to go to war, no matter what; it was the only way to remove southern political opposition to the railroad bills, massive tariff increases, and 'Homestead Act' scams to support the railroads subsidies.
> 
> The war was over two divergent sets of wealthy financial interests and the political power exerted by those interests, and nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Reconstruction farce was overseen by Andrew Johnson, a Democrat.  You know, since Lincoln was shot and all.  Which was really too bad for the South; Lincoln openly favored a conciliatory policy and had the influence with Congress to get one; Johnson didn't and got run over by Congress.
> 
> "Provoking the war over Fort Sumter," is a laugh riot; there was already a war at that point.  That's kind of what it is when you bombard forts into submission.
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you will not discuss the legal issue with me, Paperview, you know you would lose. This will be a great disappointment  to your cheerleader Mr. STARKEY, all his hopes were tied up in you. Now YOUR U.S. Is suppose to be a nation of laws, yet we find your brothers unable to cite the law I have requested, as for you, you will need to do the same, and while you are at it please produce the documents wherein our CSA government was surrendered to YOUR U.S. Or a peace treaty signed between YOUR USA and OUR CSA. Without such documents your case is lost, now who really is the Kook here? A Nation of laws? Cite those laws, produce those documents, I am busy this week, therefore I give you until Friday 9 pm to produce your evidence of fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's cute.  What makes you think you're in any position to make demands?  Regardless, one doesn't make treaties with defeated rebels.  The Confederate States is a fictional entity, recognized by no country in the world nor by most of its own population - after all, I seriously doubt the slaves were in favor, to say nothing of the large Unionist pockets in Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama.
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> The south tried to peacefully and legally withdraw from the union.
> The south offered to pay for all federal installations on our property and to pay our share of the national debt at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Peacefully and legally my ass.  Tell Captain McGowan of the _Star of the West _or Major Anderson commanding Fort Sumter how peaceful that cannon fire was.
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lying POS lincoln wanted war, though.
> The declaration of independence...which lincoln supported...says;
> 
> _When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
> 
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, *Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.*_
> 
> Declaration of Independence
> 1776
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it also says - directly after where you stopped quoting, interestingly enough; I'm sure that was coincidental -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Declaration of Independence said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes*; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a *long train* of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--*Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies*; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A single Presidential election is quite transient, it's hard to argue Lincoln subjected the Slave Power to a "long train" of anything before he'd even been inaugurated, and the Slave Power certainly exhibited nothing resembling patient sufferance.  You will find no refuge for your cause in the Declaration.
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lying POS lincoln also said;
> _*Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can may revolutionize and make their own of so many of the territory as they inhabit."
> 
> 
> Abraham Lincoln
> Jan 12, 1848*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah.  But the Slave Power clearly didn't have the power.  QED.
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> In his first inaugural address he also said;
> 
> _Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that --
> 
> I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
> 
> Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
> 
> Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes._
> 
> 
> So the southerners who wanted to peacefully withdraw are called "traitors"....but that's just what the british called the colonists who wanted to peacefully separate from england...
> 
> Laugh...call names...make fun...mock...whatever you need to make yourself feel better...but southerners aren't over being invaded and having her citizens murdered, property burned, stolen or destroyed, infrastructure ruined any more than negroes are "over" slavery.
> 
> yet the north gloats and cheers the war criminal sherman and his "march to the sea"...it's ok...these things will all be corrected in time. This country won't last..and just like other nations that collapse in violence, old grudges will be resolved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Make your threats, they mean nothing to me.  Slavery was in no danger of being abolished in 1860 - the Slave Power brought that upon itself when it plunged the country into war when it was not allowed to dictate slavery upon territories that did not want it.  Fanaticism for slavery expansion elected Lincoln - he would not have succeeded if the Deep South hadn't walked out of the Democratic National Convention because it refused to adopt a platform plank guaranteeing slavery in the territories and nominated Breckinridge to undermine Stephen Douglas.  Really that was insane of them; Douglas was a true believer in Manifest Destiny ideology, and would gladly have conquered and made slave states of Cuba and as many Central American countries as he could lay the Army on.  The South chose rebellion and war; had they abided by the electoral process as they were Constitutionally obliged to do, slavery would have persevered for decades.  It was the war, a war fought by the Slave Power to expand slavery, that turned public sentiment in favor of abolition.
> 
> Some things are worth war; that was one of them.  In short:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The south tried to peacefully withdraw and go about our business...The lying POS lincoln wanted his war and sent troops to invade. Patriots always try to repel invaders.Take 1776 for instance...your double standard and anti south bias is glaringly obvious.
> You try to parse words and make up our own reality...I've posted the actual words of people involved at the time..not some message board propaganda...
> 
> lincoln then allowed his generals to wage war on civilians..murder, destruction of their property, businesses and infrastructure....and you guys are so proud of your murderous heritage and tell lies about and mock southerners.
> It's like if your wife asks for a divorce you think it would be ok to beat her up.
> 
> Hell, I suppose you're also ok with the u.s. nuking civilians..... twice..... in WWII. "murica..fuck yeah!"
> 
> Save all you excuse making and parsing of words. lincoln said what he said...the declaration of independence says what it says...type a wall of text and equivocations...try to re interpret history so it makes you feel better....you can't erase what was said.
> 
> Here let me refresh your memory with some real history...not your filtered, revisionist re interpretations;
> _
> 
> When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —*That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.*_
> 
> 
> Even lincoln thought the declaration of independence was a good idea...until he decided later to invade the south for exercising their legal rights to withdraw from the union.
> Situational ethics.
> 
> 
> *Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,— most sacred right—a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory as they inhabit.
> More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones.
> 
> A. Lincoln*
> in Congress 1848
> 
> 
> Here's what the lying POS said in his first inaugural address
> 
> *
> 
> Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that by the accession of a Republican Administration, their property, and their peace, and personal security, are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed, and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And more than this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves, and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:*
> 
> * Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."*
> 
> Now..if you want to continue the discussion based on what was actually said, proceed..if you just want a soapbox to chirp your anti southern anti democratic position from, just say so...don't try to corrupt history..People can read these words..you aren't fooling any of them.
> Funny...only northerners think the war of northern aggression was right and proper...
> 
> It's ok, though..past wrongs will be corrected.
> Collapse, partitioning and reconstruction are the next 2 phases this nation will go through....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _"We hold these truths to be self-evident, *that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,* that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. *That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men*, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —*That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it," *_
> 
> You can't get any plainer language than that to defend the Federal Government's right to suppress the rebellion initiated by the South to insure the survival and expansion of the institution of slavery, an institution that denied these enumerated rights to a large segment of the population. It was not the Federal Government that was destructive of the ends outlined in the declaration, it was the Southern Slave Powers. As I said the language is plain, it takes no extraordinary powers of interpretation to read just one more founding document's denial of legitimacy for the South's actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *SmedlyButler,
> You are quoting the Declaration of Independence, NOT the 1787/1789 U.S.CONstitution or law.
> Again, as is always the case, the Yankee avoids the only relevant issue, that being the law, and tries to gain the moral high ground, which is not possible.
> North, nor South was without blemish, Did women have the right of suffrage in 1860 in the North?
> Was the Native American Indian not only denied these rights, but exterminated by your U.S. Government?
> Need I list the Jim Crow laws in the Northern States again which denied these rights for nearly a hundred years after the occupation of our Southern Confederate States began?
> Need I post the definition of "Rebellion" Every in post for the indoctrinated to see?
> From Johnson's Dictionary of the English language 1755 edition......
> ReBc'llion. n, f. [rtbellion, French;
> 
> rcbellio, Latin ; from rebel j
> 
> Insurrection Against lawful authority.
> Now PLEASE cite the Law, Article within YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, or amendment thereto that states that secession is an unlawful or illegal act.
> If the U.S. was fighting to give equal rights...."Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" then why did they deny these same rights to the Native American Indian, the Women , and the Black man in the Northern States?
> If indeed it was a crusade to end slavery in the U.S., then why was the North, the U.S. not pleased that with the secession of the Southern States slavery was ended in the U.S.? *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's pursue your reasoning a little further and find out more about this principle of secession.   Following your logic it should perfectly legal for counties to secede from states.   Would it be OK with you if some counties in Texas voted to secede and rejoin Mexico?
Click to expand...

*Discombobulated,
A County within a State is NOT a sovereign, nor is there a treaty between the county and State. You are thinking, yet reaching, that is far and above your other posts which tells me that you are beginning to open your mind and possibly learn.*


----------



## James Everett

rdean said:


> Today's Republicans believe that Lincoln must have been a confederate somehow and white conservatives fought to free the slaves.
> Course, their beliefs on science and education also leave a lot to be desired.





rdean said:


> Today's Republicans believe that Lincoln must have been a confederate somehow and white conservatives fought to free the slaves.
> Course, their beliefs on science and education also leave a lot to be desired.


*rddean,
I am NOT a Conservative, I am a Southern Confederate, I despise the Conservatives in your political venue as much and possibly more that I despise the so called Liberal. You cannot argue from within YOUR political realm when debating with me.*


----------



## Discombobulated

James Everett said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today's Republicans believe that Lincoln must have been a confederate somehow and white conservatives fought to free the slaves.
> Course, their beliefs on science and education also leave a lot to be desired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today's Republicans believe that Lincoln must have been a confederate somehow and white conservatives fought to free the slaves.
> Course, their beliefs on science and education also leave a lot to be desired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *rddean,
> I am NOT a Conservative, I am a Southern Confederate, I despise the Conservatives in your political venue as much and possibly more that I despise the so called Liberal. You cannot argue from within YOUR political realm when debating with me.*
Click to expand...


Texas is not a sovereign state.  Where's their navy?  Who's their ambassador to China?


----------



## James Everett

Discombobulated said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today's Republicans believe that Lincoln must have been a confederate somehow and white conservatives fought to free the slaves.
> Course, their beliefs on science and education also leave a lot to be desired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today's Republicans believe that Lincoln must have been a confederate somehow and white conservatives fought to free the slaves.
> Course, their beliefs on science and education also leave a lot to be desired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *rddean,
> I am NOT a Conservative, I am a Southern Confederate, I despise the Conservatives in your political venue as much and possibly more that I despise the so called Liberal. You cannot argue from within YOUR political realm when debating with me.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is not a sovereign state.  Where's their navy?  Who's their ambassador to China?
Click to expand...

*Discombobulated,
Texas in under current occupation by the U.S. National government, an has been since 1865. FYI, I am NOT a Texan.
When the occupation has ended, then Texas resumes its place as a member State within the Confederate States of America, its ambassador would be the CSA ambassador unless Texas were to decide to secede from the CSA. However, the ultimate goal is simply to use the restored CSA Confederacy as a means for our Southern Confederate States to return to a wholly federal system under the Articles of Confederation.  
Thanks again for your post, I hope I have helped you gain knowledge.
James Everett....
CSAgov.org*


----------



## JakeStarkey

James keeps babbling.

His understanding of the narrative is wrong.

He can never offer convincing proof of secession being a sovereign right of a state.


----------



## Discombobulated

James Everett said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today's Republicans believe that Lincoln must have been a confederate somehow and white conservatives fought to free the slaves.
> Course, their beliefs on science and education also leave a lot to be desired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today's Republicans believe that Lincoln must have been a confederate somehow and white conservatives fought to free the slaves.
> Course, their beliefs on science and education also leave a lot to be desired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *rddean,
> I am NOT a Conservative, I am a Southern Confederate, I despise the Conservatives in your political venue as much and possibly more that I despise the so called Liberal. You cannot argue from within YOUR political realm when debating with me.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is not a sovereign state.  Where's their navy?  Who's their ambassador to China?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Discombobulated,
> Texas in under current occupation by the U.S. National government, an has been since 1865. FYI, I am NOT a Texan.
> When the occupation has ended, then Texas resumes its place as a member State within the Confederate States of America, its ambassador would be the CSA ambassador unless Texas were to decide to secede from the CSA. However, the ultimate goal is simply to use the restored CSA Confederacy as a means for our Southern Confederate States to return to a wholly federal system under the Articles of Confederation.
> Thanks again for your post, I hope I have helped you gain knowledge.
> James Everett....
> CSAgov.org*
Click to expand...


I see.  So in the final analysis you don't really believe in the principle of self determination.  Your only interest is some fantasy about reconstituting the Confederacy.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> James keeps babbling.
> 
> His understanding of the narrative is wrong.
> 
> He can never offer convincing proof of secession being a sovereign right of a state.


JakeStarkey.
You keep posting the same assertion over and again, yet cannot refute the truth that I have posted, and you have yet to cite any proof for your assertions. I continue to


----------



## JakeStarkey

James, you have been posting over and over the same stuff, have been competently rebutted by your superiors, and keep saying "uh uh."

You are not four but you are not stable.


----------



## James Everett

Discombobulated said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today's Republicans believe that Lincoln must have been a confederate somehow and white conservatives fought to free the slaves.
> Course, their beliefs on science and education also leave a lot to be desired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today's Republicans believe that Lincoln must have been a confederate somehow and white conservatives fought to free the slaves.
> Course, their beliefs on science and education also leave a lot to be desired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *rddean,
> I am NOT a Conservative, I am a Southern Confederate, I despise the Conservatives in your political venue as much and possibly more that I despise the so called Liberal. You cannot argue from within YOUR political realm when debating with me.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is not a sovereign state.  Where's their navy?  Who's their ambassador to China?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Discombobulated,
> Texas in under current occupation by the U.S. National government, an has been since 1865. FYI, I am NOT a Texan.
> When the occupation has ended, then Texas resumes its place as a member State within the Confederate States of America, its ambassador would be the CSA ambassador unless Texas were to decide to secede from the CSA. However, the ultimate goal is simply to use the restored CSA Confederacy as a means for our Southern Confederate States to return to a wholly federal system under the Articles of Confederation.
> Thanks again for your post, I hope I have helped you gain knowledge.
> James Everett....
> CSAgov.org*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see.  So in the final analysis you don't really believe in the principle of self determination.  Your only interest is some fantasy about reconstituting the Confederacy.
Click to expand...

*Discombobulated,,*
*A county is not a Country. It first must become a State before it can as such seek self determination.
Thanks again for your post....
James Everett....
CSAgov.org*


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> James, you have been posting over and over the same stuff, have been competently rebutted by your superiors, and keep saying "uh uh."
> 
> You are not four but you are not stable.


*JakeStarkey,
I have been defeating you all at every turn, I continue to post the facts, the truth, and back  it by citing from whence it is derived, you and your pathetic Yankee Pseudo intellectual comrades post nothing but the same as you have stated herein....
"James, you have been posting over and over the same stuff, have been competently rebutted by your superiors, and keep saying "uh uh."
Where are the facts, where is the evidence, as you may note, your buddies are disappearing in their embarrassment.
"Superiors"????
NOW I'm REALLY SMILING  
You nor your lil group of Yankee Pseudo 
intellectuals ever rose to my challenge, therefore you lost this debate last Friday evening at 9pm..........
CSAgov.org
*


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Most importantly, Lincoln was big govt liberal who sought to impose his despotic liberal ideas on the South. Conservatives believe in slow change, not civil war.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Most importantly, Lincoln was big govt liberal who sought to impose his despotic liberal ideas on the South. Conservatives believe in slow change, not civil war, and in this case not civil war, Jim Crow and Hip Hop.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The states gave up sovereign power when they joined union.

Show me where in the Constitution they could secede.

  Implied general welfare powers trumps anything else in the charter.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> The states gave up sovereign power when they joined union.
> 
> Show me where in the Constitution they could secede.
> 
> Implied general welfare powers trumps anything else in the charter.


*JakeStarkey
You state that....
"The states gave up sovereign power when they joined union*."
Need I post this again???.....
Alexander Hamilton's assurances to the State governments if they ratified the proposed 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution....
The Constitutional debates #32....
*"An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation,* *the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States.*
James Madison states in the Constitutional debates #62,,,,
"*In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty*."
James K Polk, one of YOUR U.S. Presidents stated....
"*To the States, respectively, or to the people" have been reserved "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States." Each State is a complete sovereignty within the sphere of its reserved powers.  To the Government of the United States has been intrusted the exclusive management of our foreign affairs. Beyond that it wields a few general enumerated powers. It does not force reform on the States*."
The first clause of Article I, Section 8,reads,
*"The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes,Duties,Imposts and Excises,to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." *
*This clause,called the General Welfare Clause or the Spending Power Clause,does not grant Congress the power to legislate for the general welfare of the country;that is a power reserved to the states through the Tenth Amendment.* *Rather,it merely allows Congress to spend federal money for the general welfare.The principle underlying this distinction—the limitation of federal power—eventually inspired the only important disagreement over the meaning of the clause.
Mr. Starkey, I hope this helps you move beyond your indoctrinational fog.
Thanks for your post,
James Everett,,,,,
CSAgov.org*


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> The states gave up sovereign power when they joined union.
> 
> Show me where in the Constitution they could secede.
> 
> Implied general welfare powers trumps anything else in the charter.


JakeStarkey,
Are you in any way related to Charlie Sheen? Your silly claims of victory are reminiscent to his claim of....."WINNING".


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wannabe rebel apologist is spinning himself into knots. Too funny.
> 
> 
> 
> *Unkotare,
> You Yankee Pseudo intellectuals are so inept that it makes my job too easy.....*
Click to expand...



If your job is making an ass of yourself, you're really on top of things, wannabe. 



"The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And, when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union.""


"When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."


"Considered as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention, and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and *all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union.*"


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wannabe rebel apologist is spinning himself into knots. Too funny.
> 
> 
> 
> *Unkotare,
> You Yankee Pseudo intellectuals are so inept that it makes my job too easy.....*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If your job is making an ass of yourself, you're really on top of things, wannabe.
> 
> 
> 
> "The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And, when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union.""
> 
> 
> "When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."
> 
> 
> "Considered as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention, and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and *all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. *
> Unkotare,
> Article I sec 2. Clearly states....
> *Section 2.*
> "The judicial power shall extend to all cases,* in law* and equity, arising under this Constitution, *the laws of the United States*, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority."
> YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution has NO Article within, NO amendment to, and NO LAW that states that Secession is an unlawful or illegal act. No law means....."There is nothing within YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution in which YOUR SCOTUS can base an opinion.
> YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution makes NO mention of "PERPETUAL" anything. Also if the State of Texas, or any other State that seceded from the union was as YOUR SCOTUS  states...."*The State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union"
> Then why were the Seceded States Governments and Constitutions replaced and these new governments required to meet certain conditions for "READMITTANCE" , and why were the Constitutions replaced. Constitutions are the blueprints that establish government".*
> *Sir. Do you know the definition of DICTA? Look it up. The Texas V White opinion has nothing to do with Secession.
> My job is to educate the ignorant. Yet Working with those such as you who suffer from total indoctrination is likely an impossible feat, yet you as a Yankee is irrelevant to our cause, YOU are simply a tool to be used in educating our own people. You are what we refer to as a useful idiot.
> Thanks for your post.
> James Everett.....
> CSAgov.org*
Click to expand...


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wannabe rebel apologist is spinning himself into knots. Too funny.
> 
> 
> 
> *Unkotare,
> You Yankee Pseudo intellectuals are so inept that it makes my job too easy.....*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If your job is making an ass of yourself, you're really on top of things, wannabe.
> 
> 
> 
> "The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And, when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union.""
> 
> 
> "When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."
> 
> 
> "Considered as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention, and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and *all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union.*"
Click to expand...

Unkotare,
Article I sec 2. Clearly states....
*Section 2.*
"The judicial power shall extend to all cases,* in law* and equity, arising under this Constitution, *the laws of the United States*, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority."
YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution has NO Article within, NO amendment to, and NO LAW that states that Secession is an unlawful or illegal act. No law means....."There is nothing within YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution in which YOUR SCOTUS can base an opinion.
YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution makes NO mention of "PERPETUAL" anything. Also if the State of Texas, or any other State that seceded from the union was as YOUR SCOTUS states...."*The State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union"
Then why were the Seceded States Governments and Constitutions replaced and these new governments required to meet certain conditions for "READMITTANCE" , and why were the Constitutions replaced. Constitutions are the blueprints that establish government".*
*Sir. Do you know the definition of DICTA? Look it up. The Texas V White opinion has nothing to do with Secession. 
My job is to educate the ignorant. Yet Working with those such as you who suffer from total indoctrination is likely an impossible feat, yet you as a Yankee is irrelevant to our cause, YOU are simply a tool to be used in educating our own people. You are what we refer to as a useful idiot.
Thanks for your post.
James Everett.....
CSAgov.org*


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> "Considered as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention, and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and *all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union."*





Wannabe reb nitwit wants to argue with a Supreme Court ruling from over a century ago. I wonder what wannabe reb imagines his credentials to be as a constitutional scholar.


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Considered as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention, and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and *all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wannabe reb nitwit wants to argue with a Supreme Court ruling from over a century ago. I wonder what wannabe reb imagines his credentials to be as a constitutional scholar.
Click to expand...

Wannabe Jack Sparrow,
I'm arguing with your entire national govt system, and the idiots who blindly follow it like sheep. Your SCOTUS is no more infallible than your Congress, or Your President Reagan, Lincoln, Clinton, Wilson Eisenhauer, or YOU intellectual wannabes.
Read your own CONstitution!!!
The judicial power shall extend to all cases,* in law.
You must cite the law that states that a State cannot secede from the union. Your SCOTUS is bound by it, and cannot legally give an opinion based outside of it. To do so is a rebellious act against the lawful authority of YOUR U.S. CONstitution.   
Did you find the definition of DICTA, or do I need to post it for you?*


----------



## Unkotare

I wonder what the pathetic wannabe reb means by all this "your" stuff. What could wannabe reb's nationality be?


----------



## Discombobulated

James Everett said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today's Republicans believe that Lincoln must have been a confederate somehow and white conservatives fought to free the slaves.
> Course, their beliefs on science and education also leave a lot to be desired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today's Republicans believe that Lincoln must have been a confederate somehow and white conservatives fought to free the slaves.
> Course, their beliefs on science and education also leave a lot to be desired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *rddean,
> I am NOT a Conservative, I am a Southern Confederate, I despise the Conservatives in your political venue as much and possibly more that I despise the so called Liberal. You cannot argue from within YOUR political realm when debating with me.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas is not a sovereign state.  Where's their navy?  Who's their ambassador to China?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Discombobulated,
> Texas in under current occupation by the U.S. National government, an has been since 1865. FYI, I am NOT a Texan.
> When the occupation has ended, then Texas resumes its place as a member State within the Confederate States of America, its ambassador would be the CSA ambassador unless Texas were to decide to secede from the CSA. However, the ultimate goal is simply to use the restored CSA Confederacy as a means for our Southern Confederate States to return to a wholly federal system under the Articles of Confederation.
> Thanks again for your post, I hope I have helped you gain knowledge.
> James Everett....
> CSAgov.org*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see.  So in the final analysis you don't really believe in the principle of self determination.  Your only interest is some fantasy about reconstituting the Confederacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Discombobulated,,
> A county is not a Country. It first must become a State before it can as such seek self determination.
> Thanks again for your post....
> James Everett....
> CSAgov.org*
Click to expand...


Yes I understand that you favor totalitarian dictatorship over self determination.


----------



## James Everett

Its YOUR government, because YOU give YOUR voluntary CONSENT to it.
"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
Do you voluntarily grant your consent to it?
If yes, then its YOUR government.


Discombobulated said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> *rddean,
> I am NOT a Conservative, I am a Southern Confederate, I despise the Conservatives in your political venue as much and possibly more that I despise the so called Liberal. You cannot argue from within YOUR political realm when debating with me.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas is not a sovereign state.  Where's their navy?  Who's their ambassador to China?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Discombobulated,
> Texas in under current occupation by the U.S. National government, an has been since 1865. FYI, I am NOT a Texan.
> When the occupation has ended, then Texas resumes its place as a member State within the Confederate States of America, its ambassador would be the CSA ambassador unless Texas were to decide to secede from the CSA. However, the ultimate goal is simply to use the restored CSA Confederacy as a means for our Southern Confederate States to return to a wholly federal system under the Articles of Confederation.
> Thanks again for your post, I hope I have helped you gain knowledge.
> James Everett....
> CSAgov.org*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see.  So in the final analysis you don't really believe in the principle of self determination.  Your only interest is some fantasy about reconstituting the Confederacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Discombobulated,,
> A county is not a Country. It first must become a State before it can as such seek self determination.
> Thanks again for your post....
> James Everett....
> CSAgov.org*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I understand that you favor totalitarian dictatorship over self determination.
Click to expand...

*Discombobulated,*
*You state...
"I understand that you favor totalitarian dictatorship over self determination"
Yet it is you who support, and defend the national government system, which is YOUR U.S. Government.
Lets see what James Madison had to say about YOUR National government system during the 1787 CONstitutional debates #39....
"The idea of a national government involves in it, not only an authority over the individual citizens, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things"
"*_*The proposed Constitution, therefore is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both*_*."
Lincoln and the Northern States ushered in the destruction of the Federal portion of YOUR U.S. Government.
Sadly you and 98% of the sheeeepole, do not understand the system that was established, and live in an illusion, accepting a fiction.
Niccola Machiavelli,.
"...[A]llow them [the conquered] to live under their own laws, taking tribute of them, and creating within the country a government composed of a few who will keep it friendly to you.... A city used to liberty can be more easily held by means of its citizens than in any other way....
"...[T]hey must at least retain the semblance of the old forms; so that it may seem to the people that there has been no change in the institutions, even though in fact they are entirely different from the old ones. For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often even more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are.... [The conqueror should] not wish that the people... should have occasion to regret the loss of any of their old customs...."*


----------



## Discombobulated

The government of the Confederacy was corrupt, ineffectual, and oppressive, democracy existed in name only.  Virginia was the one state that allowed it's citizens to determine their own fate by holding county wide referendums on the question of secession.   The result was West Virginia.


----------



## Discombobulated

Jefferson Davis suspended habeas corpus before President Lincoln.


----------



## Rogue 9

Also instituted the draft first and was far more aggressive about it, not to mention used it as a punitive measure aimed at Unionists.  

Though I gather from Mr. Everett's posts that what he really wants is a return to the Articles of Confederation and is simply using the failed Confederate secession as grounds to claim territory to do it in.  The Confederate Constitution, after all, gave significantly more power to the national government in several areas.


----------



## Discombobulated

Rogue 9 said:


> Also instituted the draft first and was far more aggressive about it, not to mention used it as a punitive measure aimed at Unionists.
> 
> Though I gather from Mr. Everett's posts that what he really wants is a return to the Articles of Confederation and is simply using the failed Confederate secession as grounds to claim territory to do it in.  The Confederate Constitution, after all, gave significantly more power to the national government in several areas.



In the Confederate Presidential election of 1861 there were about 49,000 votes cast.  I wonder what happened to the rest of the eligible voters?


----------



## Discombobulated

The Confederacy was never about people's freedom to do anything.    It was all about cotton, slaves, and a few shit heel politicians pretending to be patriots.


----------



## Unkotare

Discombobulated said:


> The government of the Confederacy was corrupt, ineffectual, and oppressive, democracy existed in name only.  ....



A false, criminal fantasy that was recognized by NO legitimate nation on earth. Wannabe reb's frustration is painfully obvious.


----------



## James Everett

Rogue 9 said:


> Also instituted the draft first and was far more aggressive about it, not to mention used it as a punitive measure aimed at Unionists.
> 
> Though I gather from Mr. Everett's posts that what he really wants is a return to the Articles of Confederation and is simply using the failed Confederate secession as grounds to claim territory to do it in.  The Confederate Constitution, after all, gave significantly more power to the national government in several areas.


*Rogue9, I am truly impressed, and congratulate you!!!!
I was just about to respond to Discombobulated the very explanation that you just posted for me! The CSA Constitution carries within the same fatal flaw that destroyed YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutions federal portion. I despise the CSA Constitutional system as I do your 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutional system. As I have stated, the restoration project is simply designed to follow the legal path to restore the Articles. We have one shot at getting it right, and everything must be in place for the return beforehand. The 1861 CSA constitutional system need only be in place long enough to get the job done, and with everything in proper place and order, it should be successful.*


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government of the Confederacy was corrupt, ineffectual, and oppressive, democracy existed in name only.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A false, criminal fantasy that was recognized by NO legitimate nation on earth. Wannabe reb's frustration is painfully obvious.
Click to expand...




Unkotare said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government of the Confederacy was corrupt, ineffectual, and oppressive, democracy existed in name only.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A false, criminal fantasy that was recognized by NO legitimate nation on earth. Wannabe reb's frustration is painfully obvious.
Click to expand...

Unkotare,
Rogue9, Got it right, You failed.


----------



## James Everett

*TO YOU ALL......
LEGALITY IS THE ONLY ISSUE THAT MATTERS. WE HAVE IT ON OUR SIDE.*


----------



## Discombobulated

James Everett said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also instituted the draft first and was far more aggressive about it, not to mention used it as a punitive measure aimed at Unionists.
> 
> Though I gather from Mr. Everett's posts that what he really wants is a return to the Articles of Confederation and is simply using the failed Confederate secession as grounds to claim territory to do it in.  The Confederate Constitution, after all, gave significantly more power to the national government in several areas.
> 
> 
> 
> *Rogue9, I am truly impressed, and congratulate you!!!!
> I was just about to respond to Discombobulated the very explanation that you just posted for me! The CSA Constitution carries within the same fatal flaw that destroyed YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutions federal portion. I despise the CSA Constitutional system as I do your 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutional system. As I have stated, the restoration project is simply designed to follow the legal path to restore the Articles. We have one shot at getting it right, and everything must be in place for the return beforehand. The 1861 CSA constitutional system need only be in place long enough to get the job done, and with everything in proper place and order, it should be successful.*
Click to expand...


Awesome idea......why not scrap everything and begin again starting with Magna Carta.


----------



## James Everett

Discombobulated said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also instituted the draft first and was far more aggressive about it, not to mention used it as a punitive measure aimed at Unionists.
> 
> Though I gather from Mr. Everett's posts that what he really wants is a return to the Articles of Confederation and is simply using the failed Confederate secession as grounds to claim territory to do it in.  The Confederate Constitution, after all, gave significantly more power to the national government in several areas.
> 
> 
> 
> *Rogue9, I am truly impressed, and congratulate you!!!!
> I was just about to respond to Discombobulated the very explanation that you just posted for me! The CSA Constitution carries within the same fatal flaw that destroyed YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutions federal portion. I despise the CSA Constitutional system as I do your 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutional system. As I have stated, the restoration project is simply designed to follow the legal path to restore the Articles. We have one shot at getting it right, and everything must be in place for the return beforehand. The 1861 CSA constitutional system need only be in place long enough to get the job done, and with everything in proper place and order, it should be successful.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome idea......why not scrap everything and begin again starting with Magna Carta.
Click to expand...

*Because the 1861 Confederacy is the only useful tool, without the surrender of its government, or a peace treaty concluded, along with the fact that secession was NOT unlawful or illegal, it is a viable path to be followed in reverse. The Articles can be amended to work in this day and age.*


----------



## Discombobulated

James Everett said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also instituted the draft first and was far more aggressive about it, not to mention used it as a punitive measure aimed at Unionists.
> 
> Though I gather from Mr. Everett's posts that what he really wants is a return to the Articles of Confederation and is simply using the failed Confederate secession as grounds to claim territory to do it in.  The Confederate Constitution, after all, gave significantly more power to the national government in several areas.
> 
> 
> 
> *Rogue9, I am truly impressed, and congratulate you!!!!
> I was just about to respond to Discombobulated the very explanation that you just posted for me! The CSA Constitution carries within the same fatal flaw that destroyed YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutions federal portion. I despise the CSA Constitutional system as I do your 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutional system. As I have stated, the restoration project is simply designed to follow the legal path to restore the Articles. We have one shot at getting it right, and everything must be in place for the return beforehand. The 1861 CSA constitutional system need only be in place long enough to get the job done, and with everything in proper place and order, it should be successful.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome idea......why not scrap everything and begin again starting with Magna Carta.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Because the 1861 Confederacy is the only useful tool, without the surrender of its government, or a peace treaty concluded, along with the fact that secession was NOT unlawful or illegal, it is a viable path to be followed in reverse. The Articles can be amended to work in this day and age.*
Click to expand...


Come to think of it Magna Carta might not be a historically significant enough reference point.  If we really want to get this right we should probably have a look at Hammurabi's Code.  Although we may need to make some revisions there as well.


----------



## James Everett

Discombobulated said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also instituted the draft first and was far more aggressive about it, not to mention used it as a punitive measure aimed at Unionists.
> 
> Though I gather from Mr. Everett's posts that what he really wants is a return to the Articles of Confederation and is simply using the failed Confederate secession as grounds to claim territory to do it in.  The Confederate Constitution, after all, gave significantly more power to the national government in several areas.
> 
> 
> 
> *Rogue9, I am truly impressed, and congratulate you!!!!
> I was just about to respond to Discombobulated the very explanation that you just posted for me! The CSA Constitution carries within the same fatal flaw that destroyed YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutions federal portion. I despise the CSA Constitutional system as I do your 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutional system. As I have stated, the restoration project is simply designed to follow the legal path to restore the Articles. We have one shot at getting it right, and everything must be in place for the return beforehand. The 1861 CSA constitutional system need only be in place long enough to get the job done, and with everything in proper place and order, it should be successful.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome idea......why not scrap everything and begin again starting with Magna Carta.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Because the 1861 Confederacy is the only useful tool, without the surrender of its government, or a peace treaty concluded, along with the fact that secession was NOT unlawful or illegal, it is a viable path to be followed in reverse. The Articles can be amended to work in this day and age.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come to think of it Magna Carta might not be a historically significant enough reference point.  If we really want to get this right we should probably have a look at Hammurabi's Code.  Although we may need to make some revisions there as well.
Click to expand...

*Discombobulated*,
*You can mock as you wish, it only makes you look small and petty. You are fine with YOUR national system, perennial war and hegemony, The lose of liberty piecemeal, a government of UCC, a government which violates your privacy, etc, and thats fine for the North, I am pleased to leave you with all your trillions in debt, and your two [[arty duopoly. We will seek our own path to that precious jewel.....LIBERTY. Mock away, You are of no relevance to our cause. *


----------



## Discombobulated

James Everett said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also instituted the draft first and was far more aggressive about it, not to mention used it as a punitive measure aimed at Unionists.
> 
> Though I gather from Mr. Everett's posts that what he really wants is a return to the Articles of Confederation and is simply using the failed Confederate secession as grounds to claim territory to do it in.  The Confederate Constitution, after all, gave significantly more power to the national government in several areas.
> 
> 
> 
> *Rogue9, I am truly impressed, and congratulate you!!!!
> I was just about to respond to Discombobulated the very explanation that you just posted for me! The CSA Constitution carries within the same fatal flaw that destroyed YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutions federal portion. I despise the CSA Constitutional system as I do your 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutional system. As I have stated, the restoration project is simply designed to follow the legal path to restore the Articles. We have one shot at getting it right, and everything must be in place for the return beforehand. The 1861 CSA constitutional system need only be in place long enough to get the job done, and with everything in proper place and order, it should be successful.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome idea......why not scrap everything and begin again starting with Magna Carta.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Because the 1861 Confederacy is the only useful tool, without the surrender of its government, or a peace treaty concluded, along with the fact that secession was NOT unlawful or illegal, it is a viable path to be followed in reverse. The Articles can be amended to work in this day and age.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come to think of it Magna Carta might not be a historically significant enough reference point.  If we really want to get this right we should probably have a look at Hammurabi's Code.  Although we may need to make some revisions there as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Discombobulated*,
> *You can mock as you wish, it only makes you look small and petty. You are fine with YOUR national system, perennial war and hegemony, The lose of liberty piecemeal, a government of UCC, a government which violates your privacy, etc, and thats fine for the North, I am pleased to leave you with all your trillions in debt, and your two [[arty duopoly. We will seek our own path to that precious jewel.....LIBERTY. Mock away, You are of no relevance to our cause. *
Click to expand...


Like I said already, you don't have my permission to dismember my country and you never will.


----------



## James Everett

Discombobulated said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Rogue9, I am truly impressed, and congratulate you!!!!
> I was just about to respond to Discombobulated the very explanation that you just posted for me! The CSA Constitution carries within the same fatal flaw that destroyed YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutions federal portion. I despise the CSA Constitutional system as I do your 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutional system. As I have stated, the restoration project is simply designed to follow the legal path to restore the Articles. We have one shot at getting it right, and everything must be in place for the return beforehand. The 1861 CSA constitutional system need only be in place long enough to get the job done, and with everything in proper place and order, it should be successful.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome idea......why not scrap everything and begin again starting with Magna Carta.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Because the 1861 Confederacy is the only useful tool, without the surrender of its government, or a peace treaty concluded, along with the fact that secession was NOT unlawful or illegal, it is a viable path to be followed in reverse. The Articles can be amended to work in this day and age.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come to think of it Magna Carta might not be a historically significant enough reference point.  If we really want to get this right we should probably have a look at Hammurabi's Code.  Although we may need to make some revisions there as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Discombobulated*,
> *You can mock as you wish, it only makes you look small and petty. You are fine with YOUR national system, perennial war and hegemony, The lose of liberty piecemeal, a government of UCC, a government which violates your privacy, etc, and thats fine for the North, I am pleased to leave you with all your trillions in debt, and your two [[arty duopoly. We will seek our own path to that precious jewel.....LIBERTY. Mock away, You are of no relevance to our cause. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said already, you don't have my permission to dismember my country and you never will.
Click to expand...

First I dont need your permission for anything.
Second, you still do not understand the very name "United States of America", NOT THE STATE OF AMERICA, NOT THE SOVEREIGN NATION OF AMERICA, NOT THE COUNTRY OF AMERICA, IT WAS SUPPOSE TO BE A UNION OF STATES, HENCE "The United States of America."
You are no different than the Republican Conservative that you so despise, and yet so indoctrinated that you cannot see your own image in the mirror, which is the same reflection as that which you which you despise, Both are Yankee doodle dandys, each beleiveing the other to be  at fault for what ails your government, when it is in fact the very National system that you cannot see.


----------



## Discombobulated

James Everett said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome idea......why not scrap everything and begin again starting with Magna Carta.
> 
> 
> 
> *Because the 1861 Confederacy is the only useful tool, without the surrender of its government, or a peace treaty concluded, along with the fact that secession was NOT unlawful or illegal, it is a viable path to be followed in reverse. The Articles can be amended to work in this day and age.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come to think of it Magna Carta might not be a historically significant enough reference point.  If we really want to get this right we should probably have a look at Hammurabi's Code.  Although we may need to make some revisions there as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Discombobulated*,
> *You can mock as you wish, it only makes you look small and petty. You are fine with YOUR national system, perennial war and hegemony, The lose of liberty piecemeal, a government of UCC, a government which violates your privacy, etc, and thats fine for the North, I am pleased to leave you with all your trillions in debt, and your two [[arty duopoly. We will seek our own path to that precious jewel.....LIBERTY. Mock away, You are of no relevance to our cause. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said already, you don't have my permission to dismember my country and you never will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First I dont need your permission for anything.
> Second, you still do not understand the very name "United States of America", NOT THE STATE OF AMERICA, NOT THE SOVEREIGN NATION OF AMERICA, NOT THE COUNTRY OF AMERICA, IT WAS SUPPOSE TO BE A UNION OF STATES, HENCE "The United States of America."
> You are no different than the Republican Conservative that you so despise, and yet so indoctrinated that you cannot see your own image in the mirror, which is the same reflection as that which you which you despise, Both are Yankee doodle dandys, each beleiveing the other to be  at fault for what ails your government, when it is in fact the very National system that you cannot see.
Click to expand...


Even in your somewhat delusional state you must be lucid enough to realize that your schemes have virtually no chance for any kind of success.


----------



## James Everett

Discombobulated said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Because the 1861 Confederacy is the only useful tool, without the surrender of its government, or a peace treaty concluded, along with the fact that secession was NOT unlawful or illegal, it is a viable path to be followed in reverse. The Articles can be amended to work in this day and age.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come to think of it Magna Carta might not be a historically significant enough reference point.  If we really want to get this right we should probably have a look at Hammurabi's Code.  Although we may need to make some revisions there as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Discombobulated*,
> *You can mock as you wish, it only makes you look small and petty. You are fine with YOUR national system, perennial war and hegemony, The lose of liberty piecemeal, a government of UCC, a government which violates your privacy, etc, and thats fine for the North, I am pleased to leave you with all your trillions in debt, and your two [[arty duopoly. We will seek our own path to that precious jewel.....LIBERTY. Mock away, You are of no relevance to our cause. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said already, you don't have my permission to dismember my country and you never will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First I dont need your permission for anything.
> Second, you still do not understand the very name "United States of America", NOT THE STATE OF AMERICA, NOT THE SOVEREIGN NATION OF AMERICA, NOT THE COUNTRY OF AMERICA, IT WAS SUPPOSE TO BE A UNION OF STATES, HENCE "The United States of America."
> You are no different than the Republican Conservative that you so despise, and yet so indoctrinated that you cannot see your own image in the mirror, which is the same reflection as that which you which you despise, Both are Yankee doodle dandys, each beleiveing the other to be  at fault for what ails your government, when it is in fact the very National system that you cannot see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even in your somewhat delusional state you must be lucid enough to realize that your schemes have virtually no chance for any kind of success.
Click to expand...

*Discombobulated, 
There were many subjects in King George's England, as well as many loyal American colonists who likely made the same or similar statement concerning the Founders' and their Continental congress. There is a saying that goes like this....
"CAINT NEVER DID, BUT TRY SOMETIMES DOES"
All we need do is continue using Yankees like you for the useful idiots that you are to expose the underlying feelings that North and South hold toward one another in our quest to gain the consent of our people which grows daily. CONSENT is key. All we really need do when all is said and done is remain standing as YOUR government falls into total economic collapse following the path of the former Soviet Union. *


----------



## Discombobulated

James Everett said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come to think of it Magna Carta might not be a historically significant enough reference point.  If we really want to get this right we should probably have a look at Hammurabi's Code.  Although we may need to make some revisions there as well.
> 
> 
> 
> *Discombobulated*,
> *You can mock as you wish, it only makes you look small and petty. You are fine with YOUR national system, perennial war and hegemony, The lose of liberty piecemeal, a government of UCC, a government which violates your privacy, etc, and thats fine for the North, I am pleased to leave you with all your trillions in debt, and your two [[arty duopoly. We will seek our own path to that precious jewel.....LIBERTY. Mock away, You are of no relevance to our cause. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said already, you don't have my permission to dismember my country and you never will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First I dont need your permission for anything.
> Second, you still do not understand the very name "United States of America", NOT THE STATE OF AMERICA, NOT THE SOVEREIGN NATION OF AMERICA, NOT THE COUNTRY OF AMERICA, IT WAS SUPPOSE TO BE A UNION OF STATES, HENCE "The United States of America."
> You are no different than the Republican Conservative that you so despise, and yet so indoctrinated that you cannot see your own image in the mirror, which is the same reflection as that which you which you despise, Both are Yankee doodle dandys, each beleiveing the other to be  at fault for what ails your government, when it is in fact the very National system that you cannot see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even in your somewhat delusional state you must be lucid enough to realize that your schemes have virtually no chance for any kind of success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Discombobulated,
> There were many subjects in King George's England, as well as many loyal American colonists who likely made the same or similar statement concerning the Founders' and their Continental congress. There is a saying that goes like this....
> "CAINT NEVER DID, BUT TRY SOMETIMES DOES"
> All we need do is continue using Yankees like you for the useful idiots that you are to expose the underlying feelings that North and South hold toward one another in our quest to gain the consent of our people which grows daily. CONSENT is key. All we really need do when all is said and done is remain standing as YOUR government falls into total economic collapse following the path of the former Soviet Union. *
Click to expand...


In other words you are hoping for economic collapse to create the conditions that could lead to secession.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government of the Confederacy was corrupt, ineffectual, and oppressive, democracy existed in name only.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A false, criminal fantasy that was recognized by NO legitimate nation on earth. Wannabe reb's frustration is painfully obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government of the Confederacy was corrupt, ineffectual, and oppressive, democracy existed in name only.  ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A false, criminal fantasy that was recognized by NO legitimate nation on earth. Wannabe reb's frustration is painfully obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unkotare,
> Rogue9, Got it right, You failed.
Click to expand...



All the defeated traitors of the time have long since died. High time some wannabe loser like you let it go. The traitors were wrong, you are wrong; history has moved on and you are just making more and more of a fool of yourself.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> *TO YOU ALL......
> LEGALITY IS THE ONLY ISSUE THAT MATTERS. .*




And the Supreme Court clarified the illegitimacy of the traitors make-believe government.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> * WE HAVE IT ON OUR SIDE.*




Who is "we," wannabe?


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> * secession was NOT unlawful or illegal....*


It was both; you poor, ignorant loser.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> *. The Articles can be amended to work in this day and age.*



The Articles of Confederation proved unworkable. They are not coming back, no matter what mental illness you suffer from.


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> *. The Articles can be amended to work in this day and age.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Articles of Confederation proved unworkable. They are not coming back, no matter what mental illness you suffer from.
Click to expand...

As. Is evident, these are just the kind of useful idiots that we enjoy. You all do much of the work for us. You claim victory by posting nothing but childish insults. So ignorant are you that you deny every fact posted without addressing them. Your intellect is that of a spoiled child. My work was done here last Friday at 9 pm. Now I'm simply enjoying watching fools being fools. Much of this material has been copied and pasted to be used in a future article to show our people the court jesters of the North. You simply argue for the sake of arguement.  At this point, I Could state that shit is not food, and you fools would eat a pound of it, all the while stating that it taste like ice cream making complete fools of yourselves with the world laughing at you, yet your foolish pride would make you blind to it all. I continue to smile at the court jesters


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> *. The Articles can be amended to work in this day and age.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Articles of Confederation proved unworkable. They are not coming back, no matter what mental illness you suffer from.
Click to expand...

I have ready been through this with one of your ilk several days ago, and have no desire to educate you on the subject other than to state that the Articles were in place for only six years, your USConstitution had 90 years and still didn't work which lead to the bloodiest war in history.


----------



## James Everett

Discombobulated said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Discombobulated*,
> *You can mock as you wish, it only makes you look small and petty. You are fine with YOUR national system, perennial war and hegemony, The lose of liberty piecemeal, a government of UCC, a government which violates your privacy, etc, and thats fine for the North, I am pleased to leave you with all your trillions in debt, and your two [[arty duopoly. We will seek our own path to that precious jewel.....LIBERTY. Mock away, You are of no relevance to our cause. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said already, you don't have my permission to dismember my country and you never will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First I dont need your permission for anything.
> Second, you still do not understand the very name "United States of America", NOT THE STATE OF AMERICA, NOT THE SOVEREIGN NATION OF AMERICA, NOT THE COUNTRY OF AMERICA, IT WAS SUPPOSE TO BE A UNION OF STATES, HENCE "The United States of America."
> You are no different than the Republican Conservative that you so despise, and yet so indoctrinated that you cannot see your own image in the mirror, which is the same reflection as that which you which you despise, Both are Yankee doodle dandys, each beleiveing the other to be  at fault for what ails your government, when it is in fact the very National system that you cannot see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even in your somewhat delusional state you must be lucid enough to realize that your schemes have virtually no chance for any kind of success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Discombobulated,
> There were many subjects in King George's England, as well as many loyal American colonists who likely made the same or similar statement concerning the Founders' and their Continental congress. There is a saying that goes like this....
> "CAINT NEVER DID, BUT TRY SOMETIMES DOES"
> All we need do is continue using Yankees like you for the useful idiots that you are to expose the underlying feelings that North and South hold toward one another in our quest to gain the consent of our people which grows daily. CONSENT is key. All we really need do when all is said and done is remain standing as YOUR government falls into total economic collapse following the path of the former Soviet Union. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words you are hoping for economic collapse to create the conditions that could lead to secession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still have no understanding after all the time I have spent educating you, do you. Secessions were accomplished in1860 and 1862, an end to the occupation is required at this point.
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Discombobulated*,
> *You can mock as you wish, it only makes you look small and petty. You are fine with YOUR national system, perennial war and hegemony, The lose of liberty piecemeal, a government of UCC, a government which violates your privacy, etc, and thats fine for the North, I am pleased to leave you with all your trillions in debt, and your two [[arty duopoly. We will seek our own path to that precious jewel.....LIBERTY. Mock away, You are of no relevance to our cause. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said already, you don't have my permission to dismember my country and you never will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First I dont need your permission for anything.
> Second, you still do not understand the very name "United States of America", NOT THE STATE OF AMERICA, NOT THE SOVEREIGN NATION OF AMERICA, NOT THE COUNTRY OF AMERICA, IT WAS SUPPOSE TO BE A UNION OF STATES, HENCE "The United States of America."
> You are no different than the Republican Conservative that you so despise, and yet so indoctrinated that you cannot see your own image in the mirror, which is the same reflection as that which you which you despise, Both are Yankee doodle dandys, each beleiveing the other to be  at fault for what ails your government, when it is in fact the very National system that you cannot see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even in your somewhat delusional state you must be lucid enough to realize that your schemes have virtually no chance for any kind of success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Discombobulated,
> There were many subjects in King George's England, as well as many loyal American colonists who likely made the same or similar statement concerning the Founders' and their Continental congress. There is a saying that goes like this....
> "CAINT NEVER DID, BUT TRY SOMETIMES DOES"
> All we need do is continue using Yankees like you for the useful idiots that you are to expose the underlying feelings that North and South hold toward one another in our quest to gain the consent of our people which grows daily. CONSENT is key. All we really need do when all is said and done is remain standing as YOUR government falls into total economic collapse following the path of the former Soviet Union. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words you are hoping for economic collapse to create the conditions that could lead to secession.
Click to expand...


----------



## Discombobulated

James Everett said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> First I dont need your permission for anything.
> Second, you still do not understand the very name "United States of America", NOT THE STATE OF AMERICA, NOT THE SOVEREIGN NATION OF AMERICA, NOT THE COUNTRY OF AMERICA, IT WAS SUPPOSE TO BE A UNION OF STATES, HENCE "The United States of America."
> You are no different than the Republican Conservative that you so despise, and yet so indoctrinated that you cannot see your own image in the mirror, which is the same reflection as that which you which you despise, Both are Yankee doodle dandys, each beleiveing the other to be  at fault for what ails your government, when it is in fact the very National system that you cannot see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even in your somewhat delusional state you must be lucid enough to realize that your schemes have virtually no chance for any kind of success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Discombobulated,
> There were many subjects in King George's England, as well as many loyal American colonists who likely made the same or similar statement concerning the Founders' and their Continental congress. There is a saying that goes like this....
> "CAINT NEVER DID, BUT TRY SOMETIMES DOES"
> All we need do is continue using Yankees like you for the useful idiots that you are to expose the underlying feelings that North and South hold toward one another in our quest to gain the consent of our people which grows daily. CONSENT is key. All we really need do when all is said and done is remain standing as YOUR government falls into total economic collapse following the path of the former Soviet Union. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words you are hoping for economic collapse to create the conditions that could lead to secession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still have no understanding after all the time I have spent educating you, do you. Secessions were accomplished in1860 and 1862, an end to the occupation is required at this point.
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said already, you don't have my permission to dismember my country and you never will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First I dont need your permission for anything.
> Second, you still do not understand the very name "United States of America", NOT THE STATE OF AMERICA, NOT THE SOVEREIGN NATION OF AMERICA, NOT THE COUNTRY OF AMERICA, IT WAS SUPPOSE TO BE A UNION OF STATES, HENCE "The United States of America."
> You are no different than the Republican Conservative that you so despise, and yet so indoctrinated that you cannot see your own image in the mirror, which is the same reflection as that which you which you despise, Both are Yankee doodle dandys, each beleiveing the other to be  at fault for what ails your government, when it is in fact the very National system that you cannot see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even in your somewhat delusional state you must be lucid enough to realize that your schemes have virtually no chance for any kind of success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Discombobulated,
> There were many subjects in King George's England, as well as many loyal American colonists who likely made the same or similar statement concerning the Founders' and their Continental congress. There is a saying that goes like this....
> "CAINT NEVER DID, BUT TRY SOMETIMES DOES"
> All we need do is continue using Yankees like you for the useful idiots that you are to expose the underlying feelings that North and South hold toward one another in our quest to gain the consent of our people which grows daily. CONSENT is key. All we really need do when all is said and done is remain standing as YOUR government falls into total economic collapse following the path of the former Soviet Union. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words you are hoping for economic collapse to create the conditions that could lead to secession.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Probably your most eloquent rebuttal yet.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> have no desire to educate you ...






You have no ability, you mean. Enjoy your impotent frustration, wannabe reb.


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> have no desire to educate you ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no ability, you mean. Enjoy your impotent frustration, wannabe reb. [/QUOTe
Click to expand...




Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> have no desire to educate you ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no ability, you mean. Enjoy your impotent frustration, wannabe reb.
Click to expand...

*Unkotare, 
Somehow, I doubt that you even realize that you just insulted yourself.
THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU POSTED.
*


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sigh.  JE is good for a  morning chuckle; OCD boy on the Civil War.  His arguments are easily refutable and have been for all of the years that true scholars than he have posited them and then shut them down.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> Sigh.  JE is good for a  morning chuckle; OCD boy on the Civil War.  His arguments are easily refutable and have been for all of the years that true scholars than he have posited them and then shut them down.


JakeStarkey,
Still waiting on someone to refute my arguments here. If these so called true Scholars have defeated my arguments in the past, by all means use them here, I gave you 1 week, and you came up with not one credible rebuttal. You already lost the challenge. At this point, its not about truth to any of you, its about defeating me, but to defeat me you must first defeat the truth. Here's a hint for you....Insults will never win, and thats all any of you have left.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You write from a preconceived confirmation bias, James, thus you are not a scholar only a dabbler.  Your argument was faulty from your first post and only became worse as you attempted to defend it.


----------



## James Everett

We


JakeStarkey said:


> You write from a preconceived confirmation bias, James, thus you are not a scholar only a dabbler.  Your argument was faulty from your first post and only became worse as you attempted to defend it.


ll now, if that is not the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is! Your preconceived notions are based in your indoctrination, I deal ONLY in fact, and back those facts with PROOF, something you have yet to do, or discount the facts that I have presented.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> You write from a preconceived confirmation bias, James, thus you are not a scholar only a dabbler.  Your argument was faulty from your first post and only became worse as you attempted to defend it.


Jake, let's explore this subject a little further.... Why is it that you think Iran is so at odds with your government?


----------



## jasonnfree

James Everett said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> *. The Articles can be amended to work in this day and age.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Articles of Confederation proved unworkable. They are not coming back, no matter what mental illness you suffer from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have ready been through this with one of your ilk several days ago, and have no desire to educate you on the subject other than to state that the Articles were in place for only six years, your USConstitution had 90 years and still didn't work which lead to the bloodiest war in history.
Click to expand...


Another genius to educate us, even uses words like ilk.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James is secretly an ultra-federalist who is arguing for a tyrannical national government.


----------



## Ravi

since this dude claims the south isn't part of the US then let us boot out their congress critters and stop letting them vote in presidential elections.


----------



## James Everett

Ravi said:


> since this dude claims the south isn't part of the US then let us boot out their congress critters and stop letting them vote in presidential elections.


That's what we are asking. End the occupation, and we go our desperate ways. By all means contact your representatives and ask them to support our cause. Thank you!!!


----------



## Ravi

James Everett said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> since this dude claims the south isn't part of the US then let us boot out their congress critters and stop letting them vote in presidential elections.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what we are asking. End the occupation, and we go our desperate ways. By all means contact your representatives and ask them to support our cause. Thank you!!!
Click to expand...

Awesome! Go your desperate ways indeed.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> since this dude claims the south isn't part of the US then let us boot out their congress critters and stop letting them vote in presidential elections.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what we are asking. End the occupation,!
Click to expand...



Who is "we," wannabe?


----------



## Syriusly

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> since this dude claims the south isn't part of the US then let us boot out their congress critters and stop letting them vote in presidential elections.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what we are asking. End the occupation,!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who is "we," wannabe?
Click to expand...


He and his three room mates, but one isn't sure because he is worried he might not be able to get "Walking Dead" if the 'occupation' is ended.


----------



## James Everett

Syriusly said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> since this dude claims the south isn't part of the US then let us boot out their congress critters and stop letting them vote in presidential elections.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what we are asking. End the occupation,!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who is "we," wannabe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He and his three room mates, but one isn't sure because he is worried he might not be able to get "Walking Dead" if the 'occupation' is ended.
Click to expand...

As I have posted several times, google....... CSAgov.org


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> since this dude claims the south isn't part of the US then let us boot out their congress critters and stop letting them vote in presidential elections.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what we are asking. End the occupation,!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who is "we," wannabe?
Click to expand...

As I have posted several times, google........ CSAgov.org


----------



## James Everett

Ravi said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> since this dude claims the south isn't part of the US then let us boot out their congress critters and stop letting them vote in presidential elections.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what we are asking. End the occupation, and we go our desperate ways. By all means contact your representatives and ask them to support our cause. Thank you!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Awesome! Go your desperate ways indeed.
Click to expand...

I mistyped on my iphone, however desperate will it be on your part. 
Every dime of tour income tax goes to pay nothing beyond the interest on your governments trillions in debt, other government needs are funded from other taxes, therefore just as with the breakup of YOUR sister empire (The Soviet Union) upon its breakup, Russia who occupied all those States just as YOUR U.S. occupies ours, Russia incurred the debt, as will YOU. Without the sizable source of tribute coming from our labor, your income tax will likely double, while we begin debt free, other than the expense of maintaining our northern border to keep the third world U.S. citizens out.


----------



## James Everett

Sadly, the only one of the lot of you Yankees who holds any intelligence beyond the intellect both mental or emotional of an eight year old child, was Rogue9. This indictment of the Yankee population is a sad FACT.


----------



## Ravi

James Everett said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> since this dude claims the south isn't part of the US then let us boot out their congress critters and stop letting them vote in presidential elections.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what we are asking. End the occupation, and we go our desperate ways. By all means contact your representatives and ask them to support our cause. Thank you!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Awesome! Go your desperate ways indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I mistyped on my iphone, however desperate will it be on your part.
> Every dime of tour income tax goes to pay nothing beyond the interest on your governments trillions in debt, other government needs are funded from other taxes, therefore just as with the breakup of YOUR sister empire (The Soviet Union) upon its breakup, Russia who occupied all those States just as YOUR U.S. occupies ours, Russia incurred the debt, as will YOU. Without the sizable source of tribute coming from our labor, your income tax will likely double, while we begin debt free, other than the expense of maintaining our northern border to keep the third world U.S. citizens out.
Click to expand...

We will save billions in welfare payouts and hurricane relief. Win/win, IMO.


----------



## James Everett

Ravi said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> since this dude claims the south isn't part of the US then let us boot out their congress critters and stop letting them vote in presidential elections.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what we are asking. End the occupation, and we go our desperate ways. By all means contact your representatives and ask them to support our cause. Thank you!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Awesome! Go your desperate ways indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I mistyped on my iphone, however desperate will it be on your part.
> Every dime of tour income tax goes to pay nothing beyond the interest on your governments trillions in debt, other government needs are funded from other taxes, therefore just as with the breakup of YOUR sister empire (The Soviet Union) upon its breakup, Russia who occupied all those States just as YOUR U.S. occupies ours, Russia incurred the debt, as will YOU. Without the sizable source of tribute coming from our labor, your income tax will likely double, while we begin debt free, other than the expense of maintaining our northern border to keep the third world U.S. citizens out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We will save billions in welfare payouts and hurricane relief. Win/win, IMO.
Click to expand...

Well,it is good to know that you support our cause to end the occupation. There really is no need for tit for tat, but let's  not forget your fat boys billions he got for his joyzee showah. And then there is the case of our Gulf oil and refineries, and your govt perpetual wars. So much do they love war they label everything a war.... War on terror, war on crime, war on poverty, war on drugs, war, war , war.......


----------



## Syriusly

James Everett said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> since this dude claims the south isn't part of the US then let us boot out their congress critters and stop letting them vote in presidential elections.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what we are asking. End the occupation,!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who is "we," wannabe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He and his three room mates, but one isn't sure because he is worried he might not be able to get "Walking Dead" if the 'occupation' is ended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I have posted several times, google....... CSAgov.org
Click to expand...


Like I said- you and your three room mates....


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> Well,it is good to know that you support our cause to end the occupation........




Reconstruction ended long, long ago and there is no "our" to the mental breakdown you are sharing here, dopey.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> As I have posted several times, google........ CSAgov.org





Not interested in visiting your LARPer website, wannabe.


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I have posted several times, google........ CSAgov.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not interested in visiting your LARPer website, wannabe.
Click to expand...

OK, Lil Jack Sparrow. Now go play with your lil Sword.


----------



## Unkotare

Wannabe reb is one of those sad bastards playing dress-up and make-believe with the rest of the 'never grew up' minority embarrassing his neighbors.


----------



## James Everett

It appears that I have hurt Lil Unkotare, (Jack Sparrow's) feelings.
Mommy Please make that mean James Everett go away!!!!!


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> Wannabe reb is one of those sad bastards playing dress-up and make-believe with the rest of the 'never grew up' minority embarrassing his neighbors.



This is what you identify with????   Really?
*Unkotare*
*unkotare \ woon-ko-ta-re \ , noun;

Japanese. Roughly translated as dripping poop*. This word is used to describe a *pornographic genre commonly known as Scat*.* 
SIR,  IS SUCH REALLY WHAT GETS YOU OFF?
Lil Perv, Go somewhere where Lil pervs such as you belong.*


----------



## Unkotare

Wannabe reb plays confederate traitor dress up and imagines that constitutes some sort of 'movement.' Pathetic.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> Mommy Please make that mean James Everett go away!!!




More than likely it will be the nice men in the white van with the butterfly net that make you go away, wannabe reb.


----------



## AVG-JOE

*Leave it.  Both of you.*


----------

