# The Civil War (Constitutional Issues)



## DGS49

(1)  Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union?  Why or why not?  They came in voluntarily, right?

(2)  What is a "proclamation" (e.g., the "Emancipation Proclamation")?  Does it have the force of law within the United States?  Where, in Article II does the President get this power?  Why did President Lincoln not free the slaves in the Border States?  Was the emancipation legal anywhere?  Why was the thirteenth amendment necessary?

(3)  On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders?   Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)?  Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?


----------



## regent

Did the CSofA have a clause in their Constitution about a confederate state, if upset with the government, leaving the Confederacy in peace? If not, why not?


----------



## Skylar

regent said:


> Did the CSofA have a clause in their Constitution about a confederate state, if upset with the government, leaving the Confederacy in peace? If not, why not?



I look at it this way. If there is no right to seccede, then the civil war was a rebellion. And the Union had the authority to put it down.

If there is a right to secede, then the Confederate States attack on federal holdings were an act of war. And the Union had the authority to conquer the Confederate States and annex their territory.


----------



## Skylar

DGS49 said:


> (3)  On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders?   Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)?  Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?



I think they're a fair argument that the Federal Government didn't 'take' anything. As its not as if the Federal Government assumed ownership of the slaves. The slaves ceased to be property, and were held by no one. 

'Taking' requires possession. And the govenment never possessed the slaves. Slaves simply ceased to exist.


----------



## JakeStarkey

A 'trial by arms' resulted from the bombardment on Ft Sumter.  The USA won that trial.  Nothing else matters.


----------



## EatMorChikin

DGS49 said:


> (1)  Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union?  Why or why not?  They came in voluntarily, right?
> 
> (2)  What is a "proclamation" (e.g., the "Emancipation Proclamation")?  Does it have the force of law within the United States?  Where, in Article II does the President get this power?  Why did President Lincoln not free the slaves in the Border States?  Was the emancipation legal anywhere?  Why was the thirteenth amendment necessary?
> 
> (3)  On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders?   Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)?  Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?



1. Depends on the interpretation to a degree. There have been dissenting opinions from various supreme court judges.

2. Slaves were never freed. All men were proclaimed to be treated equal. Therefore all men are slaves.

3. I don't have any type of opinion.


----------



## Moonglow

Lincoln did offer to buy slaves from the south, even sold bonds to gather resources, but the south had another plan...


----------



## Dante

regent said:


> Did the CSofA have a clause in their Constitution about a confederate state, if upset with the government, leaving the Confederacy in peace? If not, why not?


----------



## Dante

Moonglow said:


> Lincoln did offer to buy slaves from the south, even sold bonds to gather resources, but the south had another plan...


yeah, with other people's money.   damn that rail splitter!


----------



## Dante

Skylar said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did the CSofA have a clause in their Constitution about a confederate state, if upset with the government, leaving the Confederacy in peace? If not, why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I look at it this way. If there is no right to seccede, then the civil war was a rebellion. And the Union had the authority to put it down.
> 
> If there is a right to secede, then the Confederate States attack on federal holdings were an act of war. And the Union had the authority to conquer the Confederate States and annex their territory.
Click to expand...


----------



## Dante

EatMorChikin said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (1)  Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union?  Why or why not?  They came in voluntarily, right?
> 
> (2)  What is a "proclamation" (e.g., the "Emancipation Proclamation")?  Does it have the force of law within the United States?  Where, in Article II does the President get this power?  Why did President Lincoln not free the slaves in the Border States?  Was the emancipation legal anywhere?  Why was the thirteenth amendment necessary?
> 
> (3)  On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders?   Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)?  Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Depends on the interpretation to a degree. There have been dissenting opinions from various supreme court judges.
> 
> 2. Slaves were never freed. All men were proclaimed to be treated equal. Therefore all men are slaves.
> 
> 3. I don't have any type of opinion.
Click to expand...


1) name the justices and the cases

2) Did Lincoln Really Free the Slaves - The Root

3) really?  hmm...


----------



## Liminal

DGS49 said:


> (1)  Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union?  Why or why not?  They came in voluntarily, right?
> 
> (2)  What is a "proclamation" (e.g., the "Emancipation Proclamation")?  Does it have the force of law within the United States?  Where, in Article II does the President get this power?  Why did President Lincoln not free the slaves in the Border States?  Was the emancipation legal anywhere?  Why was the thirteenth amendment necessary?
> 
> (3)  On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders?   Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)?  Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?



The United States of America wasn't formed as a social club.  Dismembering the nation would require some kind of constitutionally based legal framework.


----------



## Dante

Liminal said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (1)  Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union?  Why or why not?  They came in voluntarily, right?
> 
> (2)  What is a "proclamation" (e.g., the "Emancipation Proclamation")?  Does it have the force of law within the United States?  Where, in Article II does the President get this power?  Why did President Lincoln not free the slaves in the Border States?  Was the emancipation legal anywhere?  Why was the thirteenth amendment necessary?
> 
> (3)  On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders?   Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)?  Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The United States of America wasn't formed as a social club.  Dismembering the nation would require some kind of constitutionally based legal framework.
Click to expand...

The Confederacy didn't claim what you say, straw man. They insisted they had a _constitutionally based legal framework_, not some kind of one. They were ultimately proved wrong


----------



## RKMBrown

Skylar said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did the CSofA have a clause in their Constitution about a confederate state, if upset with the government, leaving the Confederacy in peace? If not, why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I look at it this way. If there is no right to seccede, then the civil war was a rebellion. And the Union had the authority to put it down.
> 
> If there is a right to secede, then the Confederate States attack on federal holdings were an act of war. And the Union had the authority to conquer the Confederate States and annex their territory.
Click to expand...

wow


----------



## Liminal

Dante said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (1)  Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union?  Why or why not?  They came in voluntarily, right?
> 
> (2)  What is a "proclamation" (e.g., the "Emancipation Proclamation")?  Does it have the force of law within the United States?  Where, in Article II does the President get this power?  Why did President Lincoln not free the slaves in the Border States?  Was the emancipation legal anywhere?  Why was the thirteenth amendment necessary?
> 
> (3)  On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders?   Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)?  Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The United States of America wasn't formed as a social club.  Dismembering the nation would require some kind of constitutionally based legal framework.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Confederacy didn't claim what you say, straw man. They insisted they had a _constitutionally based legal framework_, not some kind of one. They were ultimately proved wrong
Click to expand...


Sounds almost like a near distinction without a difference.


----------



## Dante

Liminal said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (1)  Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union?  Why or why not?  They came in voluntarily, right?
> 
> (2)  What is a "proclamation" (e.g., the "Emancipation Proclamation")?  Does it have the force of law within the United States?  Where, in Article II does the President get this power?  Why did President Lincoln not free the slaves in the Border States?  Was the emancipation legal anywhere?  Why was the thirteenth amendment necessary?
> 
> (3)  On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders?   Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)?  Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The United States of America wasn't formed as a social club.  Dismembering the nation would require some kind of constitutionally based legal framework.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Confederacy didn't claim what you say, straw man. They insisted they had a _constitutionally based legal framework_, not some kind of one. They were ultimately proved wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds almost like a near distinction without a difference.
Click to expand...

may sound the way to the hearing impaired amongst us, but in reality it says loudly and clearly "Distinction with a difference"


----------



## Liminal

Dante said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (1)  Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union?  Why or why not?  They came in voluntarily, right?
> 
> (2)  What is a "proclamation" (e.g., the "Emancipation Proclamation")?  Does it have the force of law within the United States?  Where, in Article II does the President get this power?  Why did President Lincoln not free the slaves in the Border States?  Was the emancipation legal anywhere?  Why was the thirteenth amendment necessary?
> 
> (3)  On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders?   Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)?  Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The United States of America wasn't formed as a social club.  Dismembering the nation would require some kind of constitutionally based legal framework.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Confederacy didn't claim what you say, straw man. They insisted they had a _constitutionally based legal framework_, not some kind of one. They were ultimately proved wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds almost like a near distinction without a difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> may sound the way to the hearing impaired amongst us, but in reality it says loudly and clearly "Distinction with a difference"
Click to expand...


I still can't hear you.  Maybe if you yell a little louder.


----------



## Dante

Liminal said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (1)  Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union?  Why or why not?  They came in voluntarily, right?
> 
> (2)  What is a "proclamation" (e.g., the "Emancipation Proclamation")?  Does it have the force of law within the United States?  Where, in Article II does the President get this power?  Why did President Lincoln not free the slaves in the Border States?  Was the emancipation legal anywhere?  Why was the thirteenth amendment necessary?
> 
> (3)  On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders?   Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)?  Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The United States of America wasn't formed as a social club.  Dismembering the nation would require some kind of constitutionally based legal framework.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Confederacy didn't claim what you say, straw man. They insisted they had a _constitutionally based legal framework_, not some kind of one. They were ultimately proved wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds almost like a near distinction without a difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> may sound the way to the hearing impaired amongst us, but in reality it says loudly and clearly "Distinction with a difference"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I still can't hear you.  Maybe if you yell a little louder.
Click to expand...

that's what the Flame Zone is for, but you have yet to earn your stripe


----------



## RetiredGySgt

This is Moot. In 1869 the Supreme Court answered this question and ruled that the ONLY way a State may leave the Union is by act of Congress.


----------



## hortysir

Liminal said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (1)  Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union?  Why or why not?  They came in voluntarily, right?
> 
> (2)  What is a "proclamation" (e.g., the "Emancipation Proclamation")?  Does it have the force of law within the United States?  Where, in Article II does the President get this power?  Why did President Lincoln not free the slaves in the Border States?  Was the emancipation legal anywhere?  Why was the thirteenth amendment necessary?
> 
> (3)  On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders?   Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)?  Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The United States of America wasn't formed as a social club.  Dismembering the nation would require some kind of constitutionally based legal framework.
Click to expand...

Actually the way it WASNT formed was contrary to the notion the state's had to answer to a federal government


----------



## hortysir

RetiredGySgt said:


> This is Moot. In 1869 the Supreme Court answered this question and ruled that the ONLY way a State may leave the Union is by act of Congress.


Years after the start of the war.


----------



## paperview

A state is free to secede if they wish.

They just have to do it Constitutionally, the way they came in.

With the consent of the other states and the Congress.


----------



## Dante

hortysir said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (1)  Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union?  Why or why not?  They came in voluntarily, right?
> 
> (2)  What is a "proclamation" (e.g., the "Emancipation Proclamation")?  Does it have the force of law within the United States?  Where, in Article II does the President get this power?  Why did President Lincoln not free the slaves in the Border States?  Was the emancipation legal anywhere?  Why was the thirteenth amendment necessary?
> 
> (3)  On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders?   Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)?  Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The United States of America wasn't formed as a social club.  Dismembering the nation would require some kind of constitutionally based legal framework.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually the way it WASNT formed was contrary to the notion the state's had to answer to a federal government
Click to expand...

That;'s why federal law was to trump state law?


----------



## Dante

paperview said:


> A state is free to secede if they wish.
> 
> They just have to do it Constitutionally, the way they came in.
> 
> With the consent of the other states and the Congress.


----------



## Liminal

Dante said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> The United States of America wasn't formed as a social club.  Dismembering the nation would require some kind of constitutionally based legal framework.
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederacy didn't claim what you say, straw man. They insisted they had a _constitutionally based legal framework_, not some kind of one. They were ultimately proved wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds almost like a near distinction without a difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> may sound the way to the hearing impaired amongst us, but in reality it says loudly and clearly "Distinction with a difference"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I still can't hear you.  Maybe if you yell a little louder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that's what the Flame Zone is for, but you have yet to earn your stripe
Click to expand...


If you're the one handing out stripes I think I'll forego the promotion.


----------



## Dante

Liminal said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederacy didn't claim what you say, straw man. They insisted they had a _constitutionally based legal framework_, not some kind of one. They were ultimately proved wrong
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds almost like a near distinction without a difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> may sound the way to the hearing impaired amongst us, but in reality it says loudly and clearly "Distinction with a difference"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I still can't hear you.  Maybe if you yell a little louder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that's what the Flame Zone is for, but you have yet to earn your stripe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're the one handing out stripes I think I'll forego the promotion.
Click to expand...

do you know how many posts back and forth over this crap? I rarely participate in this kind of thread, but wanted to make a point of showing what really motivates you

bye bye


----------



## Liminal

Dante said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds almost like a near distinction without a difference.
> 
> 
> 
> may sound the way to the hearing impaired amongst us, but in reality it says loudly and clearly "Distinction with a difference"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I still can't hear you.  Maybe if you yell a little louder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that's what the Flame Zone is for, but you have yet to earn your stripe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're the one handing out stripes I think I'll forego the promotion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do you know how many posts back and forth over this crap? I rarely participate in this kind of thread, but wanted to make a point of showing what really motivates you
> 
> bye bye
Click to expand...


Before you go I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for your tireless dedication to educating people.


----------



## alan1

Although the specific definition of "Civil War" says it is a war between political factions or regions within a country, the reality is that the vast preponderance of civil wars are wars where a political faction seeks to take over the government of the country.  That was not the case in the US civil war, the south was not trying to take control of the US government, it was trying to leave the control of the governing country, much like the US sought severing ties with England during the war for independence.

1) The states voluntarily joined the Union, I think they had/have the right to voluntarily leave it.

2) The Emancipation Proclamation only granted freedom for slaves in Confederate states attempting to leave the Union.  It didn't grant freedom for slaves in Union states.  President Lincoln didn't free all the slaves, just some of them.  It was a politically strategic move more than an act of kindness in my opinion.

3)  Sticky wicket.  My ancestors immigrated to the US after the US civil war.  I oppose any reperations for things that my ancestors and myself had no part of.  Even if ones ancestors was a slave holder, they shouldn't be held liable for it, it wasn't their action.


----------



## Liminal

alan1 said:


> Although the specific definition of "Civil War" says it is a war between political factions or regions within a country, the reality is that the vast preponderance of civil wars are wars where a political faction seeks to take over the government of the country.  That was not the case in the US civil war, the south was not trying to take control of the US government, it was trying to leave the control of the governing country, much like the US sought severing ties with England during the war for independence.
> 
> 1) The states voluntarily joined the Union, I think they had/have the right to voluntarily leave it.
> 
> 2) The Emancipation Proclamation only granted freedom for slaves in Confederate states attempting to leave the Union.  It didn't grant freedom for slaves in Union states.  President Lincoln didn't free all the slaves, just some of them.  It was a politically strategic move more than an act of kindness in my opinion.
> 
> 3)  Sticky wicket.  My ancestors immigrated to the US after the US civil war.  I oppose any reperations for things that my ancestors and myself had no part of.  Even if ones ancestors was a slave holder, they shouldn't be held liable for it, it wasn't their action.



There never was any Constitutional basis for secession.


----------



## Dante

Liminal said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although the specific definition of "Civil War" says it is a war between political factions or regions within a country, the reality is that the vast preponderance of civil wars are wars where a political faction seeks to take over the government of the country.  That was not the case in the US civil war, the south was not trying to take control of the US government, it was trying to leave the control of the governing country, much like the US sought severing ties with England during the war for independence.
> 
> 1) The states voluntarily joined the Union, I think they had/have the right to voluntarily leave it.
> 
> 2) The Emancipation Proclamation only granted freedom for slaves in Confederate states attempting to leave the Union.  It didn't grant freedom for slaves in Union states.  President Lincoln didn't free all the slaves, just some of them.  It was a politically strategic move more than an act of kindness in my opinion.
> 
> 3)  Sticky wicket.  My ancestors immigrated to the US after the US civil war.  I oppose any reperations for things that my ancestors and myself had no part of.  Even if ones ancestors was a slave holder, they shouldn't be held liable for it, it wasn't their action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There never was any Constitutional basis for secession.
Click to expand...

Opinion. The war settled who was right. Unlike subparLiminal, Dante disagrees with the confederacy's reading of the Constitution, but to say there was NO Constitutional basis is to assume ...

oh never mind


----------



## Liminal

Dante said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although the specific definition of "Civil War" says it is a war between political factions or regions within a country, the reality is that the vast preponderance of civil wars are wars where a political faction seeks to take over the government of the country.  That was not the case in the US civil war, the south was not trying to take control of the US government, it was trying to leave the control of the governing country, much like the US sought severing ties with England during the war for independence.
> 
> 1) The states voluntarily joined the Union, I think they had/have the right to voluntarily leave it.
> 
> 2) The Emancipation Proclamation only granted freedom for slaves in Confederate states attempting to leave the Union.  It didn't grant freedom for slaves in Union states.  President Lincoln didn't free all the slaves, just some of them.  It was a politically strategic move more than an act of kindness in my opinion.
> 
> 3)  Sticky wicket.  My ancestors immigrated to the US after the US civil war.  I oppose any reperations for things that my ancestors and myself had no part of.  Even if ones ancestors was a slave holder, they shouldn't be held liable for it, it wasn't their action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There never was any Constitutional basis for secession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Opinion. The war settled who was right. Unlike subparLiminal, Dante disagrees with the confederacy's reading of the Constitution, but to say there was NO Constitutional basis is to assume ...
> 
> oh never mind
Click to expand...


Once again I'd like to thank you for your unswerving commitment to academic pursuits.   The thoughtful machinations of a constitutional scholar of your standing aren't merely opinions, your profound insights represent the living embodiment of the edifice of civilization itself.


----------



## Dante

finally, the recognition so needed presents itself


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Once again the war settled the question and as to leaving ever, the Supreme Court established the peaceful means to do so. The Constitution does not allow a State to unilaterally leave the Union.


----------



## Dante

RetiredGySgt said:


> Once again the war settled the question and as to leaving ever, the Supreme Court established the peaceful means to do so. The Constitution does not allow a State to unilaterally leave the Union.


Yes, twas the war that settled it -- except Southerners and states rights sympathizers keep bringing it back up


----------



## Liminal

Dante said:


> finally, the recognition so needed presents itself



A man of your unquestioned intellectual prowess doesn't need recognition or validation from mere mortals, you're like a force of nature.


----------



## Dante

alan1


alan1 said:


> Although the specific definition of "Civil War" says it is a war between political factions or regions within a country, the reality is that the vast preponderance of civil wars are wars where a political faction seeks to take over the government of the country.  That was not the case in the US civil war, the south was not trying to take control of the US government, it was trying to leave the control of the governing country, much like the US sought severing ties with England during the war for independence.
> 
> 1) The states voluntarily joined the Union, I think they had/have the right to voluntarily leave it.
> 
> 2) The Emancipation Proclamation only granted freedom for slaves in Confederate states attempting to leave the Union.  It didn't grant freedom for slaves in Union states.  President Lincoln didn't free all the slaves, just some of them.  It was a politically strategic move more than an act of kindness in my opinion.
> 
> 3)  Sticky wicket.  My ancestors immigrated to the US after the US civil war.  I oppose any reperations for things that my ancestors and myself had no part of.  Even if ones ancestors was a slave holder, they shouldn't be held liable for it, it wasn't their action.


The American Civil War was nothing like the American Revolution in the way you have framed it. Nothing.

In American there were colonies demanding a sort of representation from a far away government. The traitorous rebels of the Confederacy were a part of the government. They were NOT trying to leave the control of a governing country. By asserting they were a separate country, they were no more credible than the nutty sovereign citizens who declare themselves free to live outside of the laws of the land.

1) You may think what you want. You may think aliens visit us from time to time and are watching over us. You have every right to think whatever it is you want to think. Your thoughts alone hold no validity here.

2) You are correct on the Emancipation Proclamation applying ONLY to the states in REBELLION. Your point on 'Union states" is at best disingenuous. The EP did not apply to the border states who stayed in the Union and were NOT in rebellion. (framing is important to truthfulness). The EP paved the way for in only a few short years, the 13th amendment abolishing slavery in the Union as a whole.

3) Not very well thought out. Confusing the nation with individuals? Who is going after the descendants of slave holders? Many slaves are themselves descendants of the slave holders. Like it or not reparations are about the government. The USA broke treaties with Native Americans. Do future generations have to pay the price? What does case law say?


----------



## Liminal

There is no constitutional basis for secession, never has been, never could be.


----------



## Dante

Liminal said:


> There is no constitutional basis for secession, never has been, never could be.


Some of the Framers disagreed with your all knowing pronouncements.

The war settled the opinions


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

“The states voluntarily joined the Union, I think they had/have the right to voluntarily leave it.”

American citizens residing in the states may not have their citizenship taken from them against their will, nor can they be forced to leave their state of residence against their will, as the right of citizens to live wherever they so desire in the United States is fundamental.

An American is a citizen of the United States first and foremost, a resident of his state subordinate to that; as a consequence of the nature of American citizenship, a state may not leave the Union unilaterally.


----------



## Liminal

Dante said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no constitutional basis for secession, never has been, never could be.
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the Framers disagreed with your all knowing pronouncements.
> 
> The war settled the opinions
Click to expand...


I guess it's just unfortunate that you are unable to point out the relevant passages.


----------



## Dante

Liminal said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no constitutional basis for secession, never has been, never could be.
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the Framers disagreed with your all knowing pronouncements.
> 
> The war settled the opinions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess it's just unfortunate that you are unable to point out the relevant passages.
Click to expand...

Passages? 

You deny some of the framers believed there was a right to secede?


----------



## Liminal

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “The states voluntarily joined the Union, I think they had/have the right to voluntarily leave it.”
> 
> American citizens residing in the states may not have their citizenship taken from them against their will, nor can they be forced to leave their state of residence against their will, as the right of citizens to live wherever they so desire in the United States is fundamental.
> 
> An American is a citizen of the United States first and foremost, a resident of his state subordinate to that; as a consequence of the nature of American citizenship, a state may not leave the Union unilaterally.



It doesn't matter what you think


Dante said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no constitutional basis for secession, never has been, never could be.
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the Framers disagreed with your all knowing pronouncements.
> 
> The war settled the opinions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess it's just unfortunate that you are unable to point out the relevant passages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Passages?
> 
> You deny some of the framers believed there was a right to secede?
Click to expand...


Did they write those ideas into the Constitution?  If not, they don't matter.


----------



## Dante

Liminal said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> “The states voluntarily joined the Union, I think they had/have the right to voluntarily leave it.”
> 
> American citizens residing in the states may not have their citizenship taken from them against their will, nor can they be forced to leave their state of residence against their will, as the right of citizens to live wherever they so desire in the United States is fundamental.
> 
> An American is a citizen of the United States first and foremost, a resident of his state subordinate to that; as a consequence of the nature of American citizenship, a state may not leave the Union unilaterally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what you think
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no constitutional basis for secession, never has been, never could be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some of the Framers disagreed with your all knowing pronouncements.
> 
> The war settled the opinions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess it's just unfortunate that you are unable to point out the relevant passages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Passages?
> 
> You deny some of the framers believed there was a right to secede?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did they write those ideas into the Constitution?  If not, they don't matter.
Click to expand...

Really?

Funny, the very men who wrote the Constitution disagree with you

fancy that


----------



## Dante

a history lesson to illuminate Liminal How the Founders Sowed the Seeds of Civil War The Colonial Williamsburg Official History Citizenship Site


----------



## Dante

good questions: 
Although the Constitution dictates how a state may join the Union, there is no written provision for secession. Did the Founding Fathers, or even some, ever discuss whether states had the right to secede if they wanted? Did they ever discuss whether the national government or the other states had the duty or power to prevent states from seceding?

If the Founding Fathers did not discuss this, when do we first see political debate in the United States on these questions?

american civil war - Did the Founding Fathers believe that states had the right to secede - History Stack Exchange


----------



## Liminal

Dante said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> “The states voluntarily joined the Union, I think they had/have the right to voluntarily leave it.”
> 
> American citizens residing in the states may not have their citizenship taken from them against their will, nor can they be forced to leave their state of residence against their will, as the right of citizens to live wherever they so desire in the United States is fundamental.
> 
> An American is a citizen of the United States first and foremost, a resident of his state subordinate to that; as a consequence of the nature of American citizenship, a state may not leave the Union unilaterally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what you think
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no constitutional basis for secession, never has been, never could be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some of the Framers disagreed with your all knowing pronouncements.
> 
> The war settled the opinions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess it's just unfortunate that you are unable to point out the relevant passages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Passages?
> 
> You deny some of the framers believed there was a right to secede?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did they write those ideas into the Constitution?  If not, they don't matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?
> 
> Funny, the very men who wrote the Constitution disagree with you
> 
> fancy that
Click to expand...


That doesn't even begin to make any sense at all.  Who cares what their opinions were if those ideas aren't included in the Constitution.    They need to be specified in the Constitution to have any bearing on law.


----------



## Dante

Liminal said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> “The states voluntarily joined the Union, I think they had/have the right to voluntarily leave it.”
> 
> American citizens residing in the states may not have their citizenship taken from them against their will, nor can they be forced to leave their state of residence against their will, as the right of citizens to live wherever they so desire in the United States is fundamental.
> 
> An American is a citizen of the United States first and foremost, a resident of his state subordinate to that; as a consequence of the nature of American citizenship, a state may not leave the Union unilaterally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what you think
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the Framers disagreed with your all knowing pronouncements.
> 
> The war settled the opinions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess it's just unfortunate that you are unable to point out the relevant passages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Passages?
> 
> You deny some of the framers believed there was a right to secede?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did they write those ideas into the Constitution?  If not, they don't matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?
> 
> Funny, the very men who wrote the Constitution disagree with you
> 
> fancy that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't even begin to make any sense at all.  Who cares what their opinions were if those ideas aren't included in the Constitution.    They need to be specified in the Constitution to have any bearing on law.
Click to expand...

Are you a strict constructionist? 

Do you know what you are saying?


----------



## Liminal

Dante said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> “The states voluntarily joined the Union, I think they had/have the right to voluntarily leave it.”
> 
> American citizens residing in the states may not have their citizenship taken from them against their will, nor can they be forced to leave their state of residence against their will, as the right of citizens to live wherever they so desire in the United States is fundamental.
> 
> An American is a citizen of the United States first and foremost, a resident of his state subordinate to that; as a consequence of the nature of American citizenship, a state may not leave the Union unilaterally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what you think
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it's just unfortunate that you are unable to point out the relevant passages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Passages?
> 
> You deny some of the framers believed there was a right to secede?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did they write those ideas into the Constitution?  If not, they don't matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?
> 
> Funny, the very men who wrote the Constitution disagree with you
> 
> fancy that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't even begin to make any sense at all.  Who cares what their opinions were if those ideas aren't included in the Constitution.    They need to be specified in the Constitution to have any bearing on law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you a strict constructionist?
> 
> Do you know what you are saying?
Click to expand...


I know enough to know that you don't.


----------



## Dante

Liminal said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> “The states voluntarily joined the Union, I think they had/have the right to voluntarily leave it.”
> 
> American citizens residing in the states may not have their citizenship taken from them against their will, nor can they be forced to leave their state of residence against their will, as the right of citizens to live wherever they so desire in the United States is fundamental.
> 
> An American is a citizen of the United States first and foremost, a resident of his state subordinate to that; as a consequence of the nature of American citizenship, a state may not leave the Union unilaterally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what you think
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Passages?
> 
> You deny some of the framers believed there was a right to secede?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did they write those ideas into the Constitution?  If not, they don't matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?
> 
> Funny, the very men who wrote the Constitution disagree with you
> 
> fancy that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't even begin to make any sense at all.  Who cares what their opinions were if those ideas aren't included in the Constitution.    They need to be specified in the Constitution to have any bearing on law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you a strict constructionist?
> 
> Do you know what you are saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know enough to know that you don't.
Click to expand...

The troll thou protesteth too much. I remember you


----------



## paperview

The question was settled at the Constitutional Convention.

The direct question, when posed, was answered when NY was considering it's ratification of the Constitution. At that time it was proposed:

*"there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years*." 

A vote was taken, and it was _negatived_.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol2/newyork0723.html

Historian Amar goes on to explain the pivotal moment of agreement:

"But exactly how were these states united? Did a state that said yes in the 1780's retain the right to unilaterally say no later on, and thereby secede? If not, why not?

Once again, it was in New York that the answer emerged most emphatically. At the outset of the Poughkeepsie convention, anti-Federalists held a strong majority. The tide turned when word arrived that New Hampshire and Virginia had said yes to the Constitution, at which point anti-Federalists proposed a compromise: they would vote to ratify, but if the new federal government failed to embrace various reforms that they favored,* "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."*

At the risk of alienating swing voters and losing on the ultimate ratification vote, Federalists emphatically opposed the compromise.

*In doing so, they made clear to everyone - in New York and in the 12 other states where people were following the New York contest with interest - that the Constitution did not permit unilateral state secession.*

*
Alexander Hamilton read aloud a letter at the Poughkeepsie convention that he had received from James Madison stating that "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever." 

Hamilton and John Jay then added their own words, which the New York press promptly reprinted: "a reservation of a right to withdraw" was "inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification."
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]*
*Thus, it was New York where the document became an irresistible reality and where its central meaning - one nation, democratic and indivisible - emerged with crystal clarity.*"

Conventional Wisdom--A Commentary by Prof. Akhil Amar Yale Law Schoo


----------



## Liminal

Dante said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what you think
> Did they write those ideas into the Constitution?  If not, they don't matter.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Funny, the very men who wrote the Constitution disagree with you
> 
> fancy that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't even begin to make any sense at all.  Who cares what their opinions were if those ideas aren't included in the Constitution.    They need to be specified in the Constitution to have any bearing on law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you a strict constructionist?
> 
> Do you know what you are saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know enough to know that you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The troll thou protesteth too much. I remember you
Click to expand...


Very gratifying to know that you remember me.  However it might be more instructive if you were able to remember the Constitution.


----------



## Dante

paperview said:


> The question was settled at the Constitutional Convention.
> 
> The direct question, when posed, was answered when NY was considering it's ratification of the Constitution. At that time it was proposed:
> 
> *"there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years*."
> 
> A vote was taken, and it was _negatived_.
> 
> Elliot 8217 s Debates Volume 2 Teaching American History
> 
> Historian Amar goes on to explain the pivotal moment of agreement:
> 
> "But exactly how were these states united? Did a state that said yes in the 1780's retain the right to unilaterally say no later on, and thereby secede? If not, why not?
> 
> Once again, it was in New York that the answer emerged most emphatically. At the outset of the Poughkeepsie convention, anti-Federalists held a strong majority. The tide turned when word arrived that New Hampshire and Virginia had said yes to the Constitution, at which point anti-Federalists proposed a compromise: they would vote to ratify, but if the new federal government failed to embrace various reforms that they favored,* "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."*
> 
> At the risk of alienating swing voters and losing on the ultimate ratification vote, Federalists emphatically opposed the compromise.
> 
> *In doing so, they made clear to everyone - in New York and in the 12 other states where people were following the New York contest with interest - that the Constitution did not permit unilateral state secession.*
> 
> *
> Alexander Hamilton read aloud a letter at the Poughkeepsie convention that he had received from James Madison stating that "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever."
> 
> Hamilton and John Jay then added their own words, which the New York press promptly reprinted: "a reservation of a right to withdraw" was "inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification."
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]*
> *Thus, it was New York where the document became an irresistible reality and where its central meaning - one nation democratic and indivisible - emerged with crystal clarity.*"
> 
> Conventional Wisdom--A Commentary by Prof. Akhil Amar Yale Law Schoo


New York -- of course.

Right of Revolution James Madison to Daniel Webster

*James Madison to Daniel Webster*

15 Mar. 1833
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_Writings 9:604--5 _
I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But _this_ dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy. Its double aspect, nevertheless, with the countenance recd from certain quarters, is giving it a popular currency here which may influence the approaching elections both for Congress & for the State Legislature. It has gained some advantage also, by mixing itself with the question whether the Constitution of the U.S. was formed by the people or by the States, now under a theoretic discussion by animated partizans.​


----------



## Dante

Liminal said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Funny, the very men who wrote the Constitution disagree with you
> 
> fancy that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't even begin to make any sense at all.  Who cares what their opinions were if those ideas aren't included in the Constitution.    They need to be specified in the Constitution to have any bearing on law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you a strict constructionist?
> 
> Do you know what you are saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know enough to know that you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The troll thou protesteth too much. I remember you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very gratifying to know that you remember me.  However it might be more instructive if you were able to remember the Constitution.
Click to expand...

James Madison says hello


----------



## Dante

paperview said:


> The question was settled at the Constitutional Convention.


No. The question was settled by the Civil War


----------



## natstew

Dante said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question was settled at the Constitutional Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> No. The question was settled by the Civil War
Click to expand...


Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been welcomed in 1776: “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. … 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 territory as they inhabit.” But that was Lincoln’s 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives regarding the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.

Why didn’t Lincoln feel the same about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What “responsible” politician would let that much revenue go?


----------



## natstew

Dante said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question was settled at the Constitutional Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> No. The question was settled by the Civil War
Click to expand...


No, the Constitution was shredded by the  War Between The States.


----------



## RKMBrown

natstew said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question was settled at the Constitutional Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> No. The question was settled by the Civil War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the Constitution was shredded by the  War Between The States.
Click to expand...

More specifically, the Constitution was shredded by the victors.


----------



## paperview

natstew said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question was settled at the Constitutional Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> No. The question was settled by the Civil War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been welcomed in 1776: “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. … 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 territory as they inhabit.” But that was Lincoln’s 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives regarding the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.
> 
> Why didn’t Lincoln feel the same about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What “responsible” politician would let that much revenue go?
Click to expand...

1) What you just stated regarding tariffs is not true. Patently false.

2) Every word you just posted was ripped off from the goofbucket Walter Williams. You have just been discovered to be a plagiarist.

For shame.


----------



## natstew

paperview said:


> natstew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question was settled at the Constitutional Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> No. The question was settled by the Civil War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been welcomed in 1776: “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. … 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 territory as they inhabit.” But that was Lincoln’s 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives regarding the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.
> 
> Why didn’t Lincoln feel the same about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What “responsible” politician would let that much revenue go?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1) What you just stated regarding tariffs is not true. Patently false.
> 
> 2) Every word you just posted in your post was ripped off from the goofbucket Walter Williams. You have just been discovered to be a plagiarist.
> 
> For shame.
Click to expand...

I never claimed to have created the piece I posted.  It was a quote, not an opinion, and Walter Williams is not a goofbucket, that would be Juan Williams, and you.


----------



## paperview

natstew said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> natstew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question was settled at the Constitutional Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> No. The question was settled by the Civil War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been welcomed in 1776: “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. … 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 territory as they inhabit.” But that was Lincoln’s 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives regarding the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.
> 
> Why didn’t Lincoln feel the same about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What “responsible” politician would let that much revenue go?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1) What you just stated regarding tariffs is not true. Patently false.
> 
> 2) Every word you just posted in your post was ripped off from the goofbucket Walter Williams. You have just been discovered to be a plagiarist.
> 
> For shame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never claimed to have created the piece I posted.  It was a quote, not an opinion, and Walter Williams is not a goofbucket, that would be Juan Williams, and you.
Click to expand...



Total bullshit.

You never cited him, nor even placed quotes around your post.

You used Walter Williams words as your own.  Anyone can see it here: Walter Williams Was the Civil War about tariff revenue WashingtonExaminer.com

This entire quote of yours:
==============================
Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been welcomed in 1776: “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. … 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 territory as they inhabit.” But that was Lincoln’s 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives regarding the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.

Why didn’t Lincoln feel the same about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What “responsible” politician would let that much revenue go?
==============================

...was ripped off whole from that piece. 

And yes, Water Williams (the man you stole from) is not only a goofbucket, he is entirely WRONG.

Admit your dishonesty and move on.


----------



## paperview

*Notice to all: natstew is a plagiarist.*


----------



## paperview

As to the blatant* lie* Williams told (that natstew ripped off) :
"Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859."

These are the facts:




<click image  to upsize>


----------



## JakeStarkey

Report him to the mods, as I did TheOwl a few days' ago.  Let the mods take care of it.  Reporting folks for not properly citing or delibrately altering posts is a good thing.  I believe Redfish agrees.


----------



## Dante

natstew


natstew said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question was settled at the Constitutional Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> No. The question was settled by the Civil War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been welcomed in 1776: “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. … 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 territory as they inhabit.” But that was Lincoln’s 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives regarding the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.
> 
> Why didn’t Lincoln feel the same about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What “responsible” politician would let that much revenue go?
Click to expand...


What is your point?

If only life were as simple as you imagine it to be. No man, be it Lincoln, Madison or Hamilton ever held true to principles when faced with the power of decision making and realities of life


----------



## Dante

natstew said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question was settled at the Constitutional Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> No. The question was settled by the Civil War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the Constitution was shredded by the  War Between The States.
Click to expand...


Really? Yet all the states agreed to abide by it. Stop living in your mythic past and face reality


----------



## Dante

natstew said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> natstew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question was settled at the Constitutional Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> No. The question was settled by the Civil War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been welcomed in 1776: “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. … 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 territory as they inhabit.” But that was Lincoln’s 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives regarding the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.
> 
> Why didn’t Lincoln feel the same about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What “responsible” politician would let that much revenue go?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1) What you just stated regarding tariffs is not true. Patently false.
> 
> 2) Every word you just posted in your post was ripped off from the goofbucket Walter Williams. You have just been discovered to be a plagiarist.
> 
> For shame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never claimed to have created the piece I posted.  It was a quote, not an opinion, and Walter Williams is not a goofbucket, that would be Juan Williams, and you.
Click to expand...


A quote?  LIAR!!!  You posted it as if it were your own words. There is NOTHING in your post to indicate you were using a quote


----------



## Dante

JakeStarkey said:


> Report him to the mods, as I did TheOwl a few days' ago.  Let the mods take care of it.  Reporting folks for not properly citing or delibrately altering posts is a good thing.  I believe Redfish agrees.


screw off dopey


----------



## JakeStarkey

Still smarting from getting smacked around?  Tough.  Sux to be you.


----------



## Dante

JakeStarkey said:


> Still smarting from getting smacked around?  Tough.  Sux to be you.


stop being such a big turd

It was much better when you were just warm diarrhea in a dixie cup


----------



## Dante

JakeStarkey 

rats eat their own.  good luck to any one who gets close enough to you. Ugh!

your delusions precede you


----------



## Dante

DGS49 said:


> (1)  Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union?  Why or why not?  They came in voluntarily, right?
> 
> (2)  What is a "proclamation" (e.g., the "Emancipation Proclamation")?  Does it have the force of law within the United States?  Where, in Article II does the President get this power?  Why did President Lincoln not free the slaves in the Border States?  Was the emancipation legal anywhere?  Why was the thirteenth amendment necessary?
> 
> (3)  On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders?   Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)?  Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?


can we get back on topic?

or

...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Dante said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still smarting from getting smacked around?  Tough.  Sux to be you.
> 
> 
> 
> stop being such a big turd
> 
> It was much better when you were just warm diarrhea in a dixie cup
Click to expand...

and "rats eat their own. good luck to any one who gets close enough to you. Ugh!  your delusions precede you"   Yep, still in your head.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Dante said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (1)  Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union?  Why or why not?  They came in voluntarily, right?
> 
> (2)  What is a "proclamation" (e.g., the "Emancipation Proclamation")?  Does it have the force of law within the United States?  Where, in Article II does the President get this power?  Why did President Lincoln not free the slaves in the Border States?  Was the emancipation legal anywhere?  Why was the thirteenth amendment necessary?
> 
> (3)  On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders?   Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)?  Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> can we get back on topic?
> 
> or
> 
> ...
Click to expand...

(1) The Union is indivisible, so, no, the states had no right to leave without permission from the other states.

(2) and (3)The wartime powers of the President competently answers both of these sets of questions.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

1. Obviously they had the power to secede. 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." Since the Constitution does not prohibit states from seceding they have the right. There is also the matter that the idea of being able to secede was guaranteed at the ratifying conventions.

2. It's irrelevant whether the Emancipation Proclamation has the force of law, because the 13th Amendment trumped it. Why was the 13th Amendment necessary? Because the EP didn't actually free any slaves.

3. In a just world the slaveholders would not have received any compensation, and would rather have had to pay compensation to their former slaves.


----------



## Dante

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> 1. Obviously they had the power to secede. 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." Since the Constitution does not prohibit states from seceding they have the right. There is also the matter that the idea of being able to secede was guaranteed at the ratifying conventions.
> 
> 2. It's irrelevant whether the Emancipation Proclamation has the force of law, because the 13th Amendment trumped it. Why was the 13th Amendment necessary? Because the EP didn't actually free any slaves.
> 
> 3. In a just world the slaveholders would not have received any compensation, and would rather have had to pay compensation to their former slaves.


James Madison made nuanced distinctions on any right to secede. He basically told others who had asked that there was no right to secede except in the sense that all people had an inherent right to throw off any government that was extremely oppressive.


----------



## Dante

JakeStarkey said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (1)  Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union?  Why or why not?  They came in voluntarily, right?
> 
> (2)  What is a "proclamation" (e.g., the "Emancipation Proclamation")?  Does it have the force of law within the United States?  Where, in Article II does the President get this power?  Why did President Lincoln not free the slaves in the Border States?  Was the emancipation legal anywhere?  Why was the thirteenth amendment necessary?
> 
> (3)  On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders?   Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)?  Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> can we get back on topic?
> 
> or
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> (1) The Union is indivisible, so, no, the states had no right to leave without permission from the other states.
> 
> (2) and (3)The wartime powers of the President competently answers both of these sets of questions.
Click to expand...

Indivisible? what?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Dante said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Obviously they had the power to secede. 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." Since the Constitution does not prohibit states from seceding they have the right. There is also the matter that the idea of being able to secede was guaranteed at the ratifying conventions.
> 
> 2. It's irrelevant whether the Emancipation Proclamation has the force of law, because the 13th Amendment trumped it. Why was the 13th Amendment necessary? Because the EP didn't actually free any slaves.
> 
> 3. In a just world the slaveholders would not have received any compensation, and would rather have had to pay compensation to their former slaves.
> 
> 
> 
> James Madison made nuanced distinctions on any right to secede. He basically told others who had asked that there was no right to secede except in the sense that all people had an inherent right to throw off any government that was extremely oppressive.
Click to expand...

James Madison, like many of the founders, said different things at different times. Regardless, his opinion doesn't refute anything I said. The plain meaning of the Constitution allows for secession, and the interpretation of the Constitution during the ratifying conventions was that states could secede. The Constitution can't mean one thing before it's ratified and another thing after.


----------



## Politico

Moonglow said:


> Lincoln did offer to buy slaves from the south, even sold bonds to gather resources, but the south had another plan...


People seem to forget that fact.


----------



## Dante

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Obviously they had the power to secede. 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." Since the Constitution does not prohibit states from seceding they have the right. There is also the matter that the idea of being able to secede was guaranteed at the ratifying conventions.
> 
> 2. It's irrelevant whether the Emancipation Proclamation has the force of law, because the 13th Amendment trumped it. Why was the 13th Amendment necessary? Because the EP didn't actually free any slaves.
> 
> 3. In a just world the slaveholders would not have received any compensation, and would rather have had to pay compensation to their former slaves.
> 
> 
> 
> James Madison made nuanced distinctions on any right to secede. He basically told others who had asked that there was no right to secede except in the sense that all people had an inherent right to throw off any government that was extremely oppressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> James Madison, like many of the founders, said different things at different times. Regardless, his opinion doesn't refute anything I said. *(1)*The plain meaning of the Constitution allows for secession, *(2)* and the interpretation of the Constitution during the ratifying conventions was that states could secede. The *(3) *Constitution can't mean one thing before it's ratified and another thing after.
Click to expand...


(3) Of course it can. This happens with laws every day. 

(1) How so?   (2) really? I've read more than a few things on this subject and have not come to the same conclusions as you have -- and most of the material left by the framers appears to contradict you.


----------



## natstew

paperview said:


> natstew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> natstew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question was settled at the Constitutional Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> No. The question was settled by the Civil War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been welcomed in 1776: “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. … 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 territory as they inhabit.” But that was Lincoln’s 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives regarding the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.
> 
> Why didn’t Lincoln feel the same about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What “responsible” politician would let that much revenue go?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1) What you just stated regarding tariffs is not true. Patently false.
> 
> 2) Every word you just posted in your post was ripped off from the goofbucket Walter Williams. You have just been discovered to be a plagiarist.
> 
> For shame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never claimed to have created the piece I posted.  It was a quote, not an opinion, and Walter Williams is not a goofbucket, that would be Juan Williams, and you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Total bullshit.
> 
> You never cited him, nor even placed quotes around your post.
> 
> You used Walter Williams words as your own.  Anyone can see it here: Walter Williams Was the Civil War about tariff revenue WashingtonExaminer.com
> 
> This entire quote of yours:
> ==============================
> Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been welcomed in 1776: “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. … 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 territory as they inhabit.” But that was Lincoln’s 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives regarding the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.
> 
> Why didn’t Lincoln feel the same about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What “responsible” politician would let that much revenue go?
> ==============================
> 
> ...was ripped off whole from that piece.
> 
> And yes, Water Williams (the man you stole from) is not only a goofbucket, he is entirely WRONG.
> 
> Admit your dishonesty and move on.
Click to expand...

Fuck you! Instead of debating the substance you attack the poster, typical Left wing commie motherfucker!


----------



## JakeStarkey

natstew said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> natstew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> natstew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. The question was settled by the Civil War
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been welcomed in 1776: “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. … 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 territory as they inhabit.” But that was Lincoln’s 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives regarding the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.
> 
> Why didn’t Lincoln feel the same about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What “responsible” politician would let that much revenue go?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1) What you just stated regarding tariffs is not true. Patently false.
> 
> 2) Every word you just posted in your post was ripped off from the goofbucket Walter Williams. You have just been discovered to be a plagiarist.
> 
> For shame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never claimed to have created the piece I posted.  It was a quote, not an opinion, and Walter Williams is not a goofbucket, that would be Juan Williams, and you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Total bullshit.
> 
> You never cited him, nor even placed quotes around your post.
> 
> You used Walter Williams words as your own.  Anyone can see it here: Walter Williams Was the Civil War about tariff revenue WashingtonExaminer.com
> 
> This entire quote of yours:
> ==============================
> Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been welcomed in 1776: “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. … 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 territory as they inhabit.” But that was Lincoln’s 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives regarding the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.
> 
> Why didn’t Lincoln feel the same about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What “responsible” politician would let that much revenue go?
> ==============================
> 
> ...was ripped off whole from that piece.
> 
> And yes, Water Williams (the man you stole from) is not only a goofbucket, he is entirely WRONG.
> 
> Admit your dishonesty and move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck you! Instead of debating the substance you attack the poster, typical Left wing commie motherfucker!
Click to expand...


Natstew does not meet the basic standards of posting in this forum.  When found out, like a foul mouth child, Natstew attacks the character of one of the most admired posters on the Board.

Natstew, you stole from Walt Williams.


----------



## paperview

natstew said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> natstew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> natstew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. The question was settled by the Civil War
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been welcomed in 1776: “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. … 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 territory as they inhabit.” But that was Lincoln’s 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives regarding the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.
> 
> Why didn’t Lincoln feel the same about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What “responsible” politician would let that much revenue go?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1) What you just stated regarding tariffs is not true. Patently false.
> 
> 2) Every word you just posted in your post was ripped off from the goofbucket Walter Williams. You have just been discovered to be a plagiarist.
> 
> For shame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never claimed to have created the piece I posted.  It was a quote, not an opinion, and Walter Williams is not a goofbucket, that would be Juan Williams, and you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Total bullshit.
> 
> You never cited him, nor even placed quotes around your post.
> 
> You used Walter Williams words as your own.  Anyone can see it here: Walter Williams Was the Civil War about tariff revenue WashingtonExaminer.com
> 
> This entire quote of yours:
> ==============================
> Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been welcomed in 1776: “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. … 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 territory as they inhabit.” But that was Lincoln’s 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives regarding the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.
> 
> Why didn’t Lincoln feel the same about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What “responsible” politician would let that much revenue go?
> ==============================
> 
> ...was ripped off whole from that piece.
> 
> And yes, Water Williams (the man you stole from) is not only a goofbucket, he is entirely WRONG.
> 
> Admit your dishonesty and move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck you! Instead of debating the substance you attack the poster, typical Left wing commie motherfucker!
Click to expand...

You were caught *stealing* -- every word of your post was stolen from another, and when called on it, you lash out like a profane toddler.

Own up  to your theft, grow a damn spine and admit what you did was wrong.


----------



## natstew

paperview said:


> natstew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> natstew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> natstew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been welcomed in 1776: “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. … 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 territory as they inhabit.” But that was Lincoln’s 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives regarding the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.
> 
> Why didn’t Lincoln feel the same about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What “responsible” politician would let that much revenue go?
> 
> 
> 
> 1) What you just stated regarding tariffs is not true. Patently false.
> 
> 2) Every word you just posted in your post was ripped off from the goofbucket Walter Williams. You have just been discovered to be a plagiarist.
> 
> For shame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never claimed to have created the piece I posted.  It was a quote, not an opinion, and Walter Williams is not a goofbucket, that would be Juan Williams, and you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Total bullshit.
> 
> You never cited him, nor even placed quotes around your post.
> 
> You used Walter Williams words as your own.  Anyone can see it here: Walter Williams Was the Civil War about tariff revenue WashingtonExaminer.com
> 
> This entire quote of yours:
> ==============================
> Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been welcomed in 1776: “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. … 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 territory as they inhabit.” But that was Lincoln’s 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives regarding the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.
> 
> Why didn’t Lincoln feel the same about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What “responsible” politician would let that much revenue go?
> ==============================
> 
> ...was ripped off whole from that piece.
> 
> And yes, Water Williams (the man you stole from) is not only a goofbucket, he is entirely WRONG.
> 
> Admit your dishonesty and move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck you! Instead of debating the substance you attack the poster, typical Left wing commie motherfucker!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You were caught *stealing* -- every word of your post was stolen from another, and when called on it, you lash out like a profane toddler.
> 
> Own up  to your theft, grow a damn spine and admit what you did was wrong.
Click to expand...

FUCK YOU!


----------



## natstew

The Right of Secession by Gene H. Kizer Jr. Bonnie Blue Publishing Southern History Southern Literature


----------



## JakeStarkey

So what, Natstew, you are an egg-sucking word thief.


----------



## paperview

natstew said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> natstew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> natstew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) What you just stated regarding tariffs is not true. Patently false.
> 
> 2) Every word you just posted in your post was ripped off from the goofbucket Walter Williams. You have just been discovered to be a plagiarist.
> 
> For shame.
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed to have created the piece I posted.  It was a quote, not an opinion, and Walter Williams is not a goofbucket, that would be Juan Williams, and you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Total bullshit.
> 
> You never cited him, nor even placed quotes around your post.
> 
> You used Walter Williams words as your own.  Anyone can see it here: Walter Williams Was the Civil War about tariff revenue WashingtonExaminer.com
> 
> This entire quote of yours:
> ==============================
> Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been welcomed in 1776: “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. … 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 territory as they inhabit.” But that was Lincoln’s 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives regarding the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.
> 
> Why didn’t Lincoln feel the same about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What “responsible” politician would let that much revenue go?
> ==============================
> 
> ...was ripped off whole from that piece.
> 
> And yes, Water Williams (the man you stole from) is not only a goofbucket, he is entirely WRONG.
> 
> Admit your dishonesty and move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck you! Instead of debating the substance you attack the poster, typical Left wing commie motherfucker!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You were caught *stealing* -- every word of your post was stolen from another, and when called on it, you lash out like a profane toddler.
> 
> Own up  to your theft, grow a damn spine and admit what you did was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FUCK YOU!
Click to expand...

Everybody is watching, you know...

Just saying "fuck you" to someone who caught you stealing doesn't erase the crime. 

Fess up, saying * Yeah, I messed up, it was wrong* might go a long way.

Let's see if you have the integrity. 

Everybody is watching, you know...


----------



## natstew

JakeStarkey said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (1)  Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union?  Why or why not?  They came in voluntarily, right?
> 
> (2)  What is a "proclamation" (e.g., the "Emancipation Proclamation")?  Does it have the force of law within the United States?  Where, in Article II does the President get this power?  Why did President Lincoln not free the slaves in the Border States?  Was the emancipation legal anywhere?  Why was the thirteenth amendment necessary?
> 
> (3)  On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders?   Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)?  Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> can we get back on topic?
> 
> or
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> (1) The Union is* indivisible*, so, no, the states had no right to leave without permission from the other states.
> 
> (2) and (3)The wartime powers of the President competently answers both of these sets of questions.
Click to expand...


Where in the Constitution do you find this word?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Nat, you are not an authority on the issue.

Sorry, bud.  But we can play the game.  Where is secession mentioned in the document?


----------



## Dante

JakeStarkey said:


> Nat, you are not an authority on the issue.
> 
> Sorry, bud.  But we can play the game.  Where is secession mentioned in the document?


Yet from day one the Eastern and southern  states thought they could secede. How to secede is the issue you dolt


----------



## JakeStarkey

Dante said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nat, you are not an authority on the issue.
> 
> Sorry, bud.  But we can play the game.  Where is secession mentioned in the document?
> 
> 
> 
> Yet from day one the Eastern and southern  states thought they could secede. How to secede is the issue you dolt
Click to expand...

Says the guy who has been getting his doltish but kicked by me the last few times out.

Nat wants to know where "indivisible" is in the document, so it is fair to ask where "secession" is in the document.


----------



## Dante

JakeStarkey said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nat, you are not an authority on the issue.
> 
> Sorry, bud.  But we can play the game.  Where is secession mentioned in the document?
> 
> 
> 
> Yet from day one the Eastern and southern  states thought they could secede. How to secede is the issue you dolt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the guy who has been getting his doltish but kicked by me the last few times out.
> 
> Nat wants to know where "indivisible" is in the document, so it is fair to ask where "secession" is in the document.
Click to expand...

should have known not to get too close to your foolish insanity


----------



## JakeStarkey

Even Nelson is on to you, Dante.


----------



## Steinlight

So what if secession was illegal?


----------



## JakeStarkey

doesn't matter one way or another now


----------



## Steinlight

JakeStarkey said:


> doesn't matter one way or another now


What's the point of discussing whether it was constitutional or not? 

It wasn't legal for the 13 colonies to secede, no, but they did anyways. Discussing the "legality" of secession seems asinine.


----------



## James Everett

Skylar said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did the CSofA have a clause in their Constitution about a confederate state, if upset with the government, leaving the Confederacy in peace? If not, why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I look at it this way. If there is no right to seccede, then the civil war was a rebellion. And the Union had the authority to put it down.
> 
> If there is a right to secede, then the Confederate States attack on federal holdings were an act of war. And the Union had the authority to conquer the Confederate States and annex their territory.
Click to expand...

Yes, the States that seceded did retain that power via the tenth amendment.
The U.S. Started the war via its violation do South Carolina territorial waters. Each coastal State at that time was recognized to own three miles out from the low tide mark. Fort Sumter was in Charleston harbor hence within that three mile area, in order for the U.S to re supply the Fort, it would require a peace treaty between the U.S. And South Carolina for the U.S. To enter South Carolina territorial waters. The Fort actually at the point of South Carolina secession was of no value to the US other than as a pawn to start a war. South Carolina had already attempted to purchase the Fort.


----------



## James Everett

Steinlight said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> doesn't matter one way or another now
> 
> 
> 
> What's the point of discussing whether it was constitutional or not?
> 
> It wasn't legal for the 13 colonies to secede, no, but they did anyways. Discussing the "legality" of secession seems asinine.
Click to expand...

So what you are asserting is that the U.S. Is NOT " a nation of laws"?


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> doesn't matter one way or another now


Oh JAKE, but is does. Russia once occupied east Germany, Poland, the Ukraine and others under the former Soviet Union, and that mattered as well.


----------



## JakeStarkey

No, those are your meaningless words, James.  Your comparison is false logic.   In American law, the CSA never existed.  In fact, the CSA was obliterated in war.  In history, outlier reasoning, such as yours, is interesting for about three minutes.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> A 'trial by arms' resulted from the bombardment on Ft Sumter.  The USA won that trial.  Nothing else matters.


in a " nation of laws" are you saying YOUR CONstitution is of no relevance,JAKE?


----------



## JakeStarkey

James Everett said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> A 'trial by arms' resulted from the bombardment on Ft Sumter.  The USA won that trial.  Nothing else matters.
> 
> 
> 
> in a " nation of laws" are you saying YOUR CONstitution is of no relevance,JAKE?
Click to expand...

Those are your silly words, not mine.  James, you lost, it's over.  Tough to be you.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> No, those are your meaningless words, James.  Your comparison is false logic.   In American law, the CSA never existed.  In fact, the CSA was obliterated in war.  In history, outlier reasoning, such as yours, is interesting for about three minutes.


Under what law did the CSA not exist Jake? Please cite that "American law".
JAKE, don't just post what you have heard, post only facts. Now please cite that law. A war was fought with the CSA, a government did prosecute a defensive war against the I.S. Invasion.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Those are your meaningless words, James.

I don't parse your nonsense.

The CSA did not exist under American law.  Since you are insisting, why don't you show us, since it is your affirmation.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> A 'trial by arms' resulted from the bombardment on Ft Sumter.  The USA won that trial.  Nothing else matters.
> 
> 
> 
> in a " nation of laws" are you saying YOUR CONstitution is of no relevance,JAKE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those are your silly words, not mine.  James, you lost, it's over.  Tough to be you.
Click to expand...

JAKE, 
The fight for freedom is never over. Do you know how long England occupied Ireland before the occupation ofIreland  ended? Ireland lost many times, however, Ireland has regained its sovereignty.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Another false comparison.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> Those are your meaningless words, James.
> 
> I don't parse your nonsense.
> 
> The CSA did not exist under American law.  Since you are insisting, why don't you show us, since it is your affirmation.


JAKE, 
You made the foolish statement that there exists an American law that states that our CSA never existed, it is now up to you to cite that law.
Don't post without thinking first, otherwise you will continue to make a fool of yourself. It best to be silent and learn, rather than post where your knowledge is only topical at best.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James, there is no CSA today, there was no lawful CSA back in the day, thus all your pontifications are rather silly.  What is nice is that you types today are harmless.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> Another false comparison.


A true comparison of occupation.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> James, there is no CSA today, there was no lawful CSA back in the day, thus all your pontifications are rather silly.  What is nice is that you types today are harmless.


Again JAKE, cite that law. The U.S. Held no jurisdiction to make a law, nor did one exist. It all comes down to municipal   jurisdiction, read the several cases prior to secession wherein YOUR SCOTUS rendered the opinion that the U.S. Never held municiple jurisdiction in a State and such would be repugnant with YOUR CONstitution. You may begin with pollards lesses v hagan 1840, then I will direct you to another.


----------



## James Everett

Dante said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question was settled at the Constitutional Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> No. The question was settled by the Civil War
Click to expand...

A question is never settled by violence or disregard of law.


----------



## James Everett

paperview said:


> The question was settled at the Constitutional Convention.
> 
> The direct question, when posed, was answered when NY was considering it's ratification of the Constitution. At that time it was proposed:
> 
> *"there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years*."
> 
> A vote was taken, and it was _negatived_.
> 
> Elliot s Debates Volume 2 Teaching American History
> 
> Historian Amar goes on to explain the pivotal moment of agreement:
> 
> "But exactly how were these states united? Did a state that said yes in the 1780's retain the right to unilaterally say no later on, and thereby secede? If not, why not?
> 
> Once again, it was in New York that the answer emerged most emphatically. At the outset of the Poughkeepsie convention, anti-Federalists held a strong majority. The tide turned when word arrived that New Hampshire and Virginia had said yes to the Constitution, at which point anti-Federalists proposed a compromise: they would vote to ratify, but if the new federal government failed to embrace various reforms that they favored,* "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."*
> 
> At the risk of alienating swing voters and losing on the ultimate ratification vote, Federalists emphatically opposed the compromise.
> 
> *In doing so, they made clear to everyone - in New York and in the 12 other states where people were following the New York contest with interest - that the Constitution did not permit unilateral state secession.*
> 
> *
> Alexander Hamilton read aloud a letter at the Poughkeepsie convention that he had received from James Madison stating that "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever."
> 
> Hamilton and John Jay then added their own words, which the New York press promptly reprinted: "a reservation of a right to withdraw" was "inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification."
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]*
> *Thus, it was New York where the document became an irresistible reality and where its central meaning - one nation, democratic and indivisible - emerged with crystal clarity.*"
> 
> Conventional Wisdom--A Commentary by Prof. Akhil Amar Yale Law Schoo


The addition of the tenth amendment was actually added to YOUR CONstitution, which became actual law, the New York discussion did not.
YOUR SCOTUS rendered several opinions concerning municipal jurisdiction, and that the U.S. (The States in union) never held municipal jurisdiction in a State once formed. PollardsLessees v Hagan 1840 to cite one.


----------



## James Everett

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “The states voluntarily joined the Union, I think they had/have the right to voluntarily leave it.”
> 
> American citizens residing in the states may not have their citizenship taken from them against their will, nor can they be forced to leave their state of residence against their will, as the right of citizens to live wherever they so desire in the United States is fundamental.
> 
> An American is a citizen of the United States first and foremost, a resident of his state subordinate to that; as a consequence of the nature of American citizenship, a state may not leave the Union unilaterally.


You are incorrect, a citizen prior to the 14th was a citizen of his State, hence an American citizen, he was a State citizen first. YOUR SCOTUS rendered just such opinion.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James Everett said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another false comparison.
> 
> 
> 
> A true comparison of occupation.
Click to expand...

Nope.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James Everett said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> James, there is no CSA today, there was no lawful CSA back in the day, thus all your pontifications are rather silly.  What is nice is that you types today are harmless.
> 
> 
> 
> Again JAKE, cite that law. The U.S. Held no jurisdiction to make a law, nor did one exist. It all comes down to municipal   jurisdiction, read the several cases prior to secession wherein YOUR SCOTUS rendered the opinion that the U.S. Never held municiple jurisdiction in a State and such would be repugnant with YOUR CONstitution. You may begin with pollards lesses v hagan 1840, then I will direct you to another.
Click to expand...

You clearly do not know about what you are talking, but you are harmless, so that is fine.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James Everett said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> “The states voluntarily joined the Union, I think they had/have the right to voluntarily leave it.”
> 
> American citizens residing in the states may not have their citizenship taken from them against their will, nor can they be forced to leave their state of residence against their will, as the right of citizens to live wherever they so desire in the United States is fundamental.
> 
> An American is a citizen of the United States first and foremost, a resident of his state subordinate to that; as a consequence of the nature of American citizenship, a state may not leave the Union unilaterally.
> 
> 
> 
> You are incorrect, a citizen prior to the 14th was a citizen of his State, hence an American citizen, he was a State citizen first. YOUR SCOTUS rendered just such opinion.
Click to expand...

The citizen has always held a dual federal and state citizenship.  The citizens of the US used the states as their agents to ratify the Constitution.


----------



## JakeStarkey

It is fun to watch James run around in circles.


----------



## James Everett

James Everett said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> “The states voluntarily joined the Union, I think they had/have the right to voluntarily leave it.”
> 
> American citizens residing in the states may not have their citizenship taken from them against their will, nor can they be forced to leave their state of residence against their will, as the right of citizens to live wherever they so desire in the United States is fundamental.
> 
> An American is a citizen of the United States first and foremost, a resident of his state subordinate to that; as a consequence of the nature of American citizenship, a state may not leave the Union unilaterally.
> 
> 
> 
> You are incorrect, a citizen prior to the 14th was a citizen of his State, hence an American citizen, he was a State citizen first. YOUR SCOTUS rendered just such opinion.
Click to expand...

I must apologize as in my haste I forgot to cite the opinion rendered by YOUR SCOTUS.....United States v Bevans


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> “The states voluntarily joined the Union, I think they had/have the right to voluntarily leave it.”
> 
> American citizens residing in the states may not have their citizenship taken from them against their will, nor can they be forced to leave their state of residence against their will, as the right of citizens to live wherever they so desire in the United States is fundamental.
> 
> An American is a citizen of the United States first and foremost, a resident of his state subordinate to that; as a consequence of the nature of American citizenship, a state may not leave the Union unilaterally.
> 
> 
> 
> You are incorrect, a citizen prior to the 14th was a citizen of his State, hence an American citizen, he was a State citizen first. YOUR SCOTUS rendered just such opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The citizen has always held a dual federal and state citizenship.  The citizens of the US used the states as their agents to ratify the Constitution.
Click to expand...

So, JAKE, 
You are in opposition to James Madison?
He stated I his letter to Mr. Everett that it was the people of the States not the State govt's who ratified YOUR CONstitution. Who should I believe, you or James Madison? "We the people" ?????


----------



## JakeStarkey

Go back and read what I wrote, then compare it to Madison's comments, and show where I am opposed to what he wrote.


----------



## James Everett

paperview said:


> A state is free to secede if they wish.
> 
> They just have to do it Constitutionally, the way they came in.
> 
> With the consent of the other states and the Congress.


No, the tenth reserves to each State individually the authority to exercise any power not delegated by it to the United States, meaning the States in union collectively. No power was delegated to the collective, (the United States) to prevent a State from exercising that retained authority. Hence, the power is not within the collective to prevent. Say you knock at my door and ask to enter and my wife and I agree to allow you entrance. Next  we offer you coffee and lunch, must you now have our permission to leave? Or can we force you to stay until we say you may leave? Such is abduction in logic.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James clearly does not understand the 10th.  But he is harmless, so let him putter along.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> Go back and read what I wrote, then compare it to Madison's comments, and show where I am opposed to what he wrote.


So,
Which is it JAKE? Is it your assertion that the States as agents of the people ratified, or the people via conventions ratified?
Was it an act of the State govts or an act of "We the people". 
Think first, as this is an important question, and you are apt to stumble yet again.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> James clearly does not understand the 10th.  But he is harmless, so let him putter along.


The tenth is clear in what it states, but by all means, you go ahead and tell us what you think it means.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James, you don't answer my questions, you make strange and unusual conclusions to matters clear cut and evident, and I find myself - somehow - unmoved.  When you can discuss the points, we can talk.  Meander around, and I will have fun at your expense.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> “The states voluntarily joined the Union, I think they had/have the right to voluntarily leave it.”
> 
> American citizens residing in the states may not have their citizenship taken from them against their will, nor can they be forced to leave their state of residence against their will, as the right of citizens to live wherever they so desire in the United States is fundamental.
> 
> An American is a citizen of the United States first and foremost, a resident of his state subordinate to that; as a consequence of the nature of American citizenship, a state may not leave the Union unilaterally.
> 
> 
> 
> You are incorrect, a citizen prior to the 14th was a citizen of his State, hence an American citizen, he was a State citizen first. YOUR SCOTUS rendered just such opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The citizen has always held a dual federal and state citizenship.  The citizens of the US used the states as their agents to ratify the Constitution.
Click to expand...

JAKE,
Prior to YOUR 14th amendment, there was no such thing as a U.S. Citizen. One was a citizen of the State wherein one resided, hence also an American citizen, NOT a U.S. Citizen, otherwise there would be no 14th amendment.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Such a foolish statement by you.  We the People are the citizens of the United States.  We used our states (not the states as independent, sovereign nations) to ratify our national charter.

Now show me where my interpretation differs from James Madison's statement.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> James, you don't answer my questions, you make strange and unusual conclusions to matters clear cut and evident, and I find myself - somehow - unmoved.  When you can discuss the points, we can talk.  Meander around, and I will have fun at your expense.


JAKE, what questions have you posed? By all means fire away, as yet I have seen no questions from you. Please cite them.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> Such a foolish statement by you.  We the People are the citizens of the United States.  We used our states (not the states as independent, sovereign nations) to ratify our national charter.
> 
> Now show me where my interpretation differs from James Madison's statement.


Again JAKE, prior to YOUR 14th there were no U.S. Citizens. 
You are in opposition to Madison in that  he stated it was the people acting in their highest authority who ratified YOUR CONstitution not the State governments, so I ask you which was it.... The people, or the State governments which ratified, if it was the State legislatures who ratified, then please cite the votes taken in those States.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I said We the People used the states.

Quote me accurately each time, or we will stop each time as I correct you until you get it right.


----------



## danielpalos

There is no appeal to ignorance of the legal fact, that the several and sovereign States ratified Article 4, Section 2 as States and not as the People.


----------



## James Everett

S


JakeStarkey said:


> I said We the People used the states.
> 
> Quote me accurately each time, or we will stop each time as I correct you until you get it right.


So, you say We the people used  the States? A State is a mode of government by definition, so what you are stating is the people used their State governments to ratify YOUR CONstitution? Now can you please give the votes if the legislatures within each State since they were used by " We the people" to ratify?


----------



## JakeStarkey

James Everett said:


> S
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said We the People used the states.
> 
> Quote me accurately each time, or we will stop each time as I correct you until you get it right.
> 
> 
> 
> So, you say We the people used  the States? A State is a mode of government by definition, so what you are stating is the people used their State governments to ratify YOUR CONstitution? Now can you please give the votes if the legislatures within each State since they were used by " We the people" to ratify?
Click to expand...

You have accepted that We the People used the states as their agents.   You have no valid point to make, do you?


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> S
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said We the People used the states.
> 
> Quote me accurately each time, or we will stop each time as I correct you until you get it right.
> 
> 
> 
> So, you say We the people used  the States? A State is a mode of government by definition, so what you are stating is the people used their State governments to ratify YOUR CONstitution? Now can you please give the votes if the legislatures within each State since they were used by " We the people" to ratify?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have accepted that We the People used the states as their agents.   You have no valid point to make, do you?
Click to expand...

No, JAKE, I have accepted nothing. I ask you several questions to which you have yet to respond. I do have a point to make wherein you will have been cornered with no real way out. Answer the questions, but be advised to think first.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yes, you did when you answered my question.  You accepted that We the People as citizens of the states and the nation (whether under Articles or under the Constitution) used the states as our agents.  You, like Calhoun, try to stand this on its head, and fail like Calhoun, when you try.

You have no way out at all.  Well, you did not from the first, so this is merely wack a mole or you


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> Yes, you did when you answered my question.  You accepted that We the People as citizens of the states and the nation (whether under Articles or under the Constitution) used the states as our agents.  You, like Calhoun, try to stand this on its head, and fail like Calhoun, when you try.
> 
> You have no way out at all.  Well, you did not from the first, so this is merely wack a mole or you


JAKE, 
I never stated that the people ratified YOUR CONstitution, I asked you the question. Are you completely looney? Please show where I ever stated that the people or the State govts ratified YOUR CONstitution. I asked you the questions and thus far you have dodged them.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You HAVE answered my question the way I described above.

Your argument is over.  No room exists, per the OP, for other pertinent questions.

Mods, please close the thread.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> You HAVE answered my question the way I described above.
> 
> Your argument is over.  No room exists, per the OP, for other pertinent questions.
> 
> Mods, please close the thread.


JAKE, 
If I answered your question, then post what that answer was. I never answered that the people or the State governments ratified YOUR CONstitution. Again please post this affirmation that you state that I gave either way via answering your question, and then you answer that same question because it was I who posed it to you, and you have yet to answer it.


----------



## Steinlight

James Everett said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> doesn't matter one way or another now
> 
> 
> 
> What's the point of discussing whether it was constitutional or not?
> 
> It wasn't legal for the 13 colonies to secede, no, but they did anyways. Discussing the "legality" of secession seems asinine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what you are asserting is that the U.S. Is NOT " a nation of laws"?
Click to expand...

I am suggesting it was just as illegal for the CSA to secede as it was the thirteen colonies. So it is hypocritical to condemn one but defend the other.


----------



## James Everett

Steinlight said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> doesn't matter one way or another now
> 
> 
> 
> What's the point of discussing whether it was constitutional or not?
> 
> It wasn't legal for the 13 colonies to secede, no, but they did anyways. Discussing the "legality" of secession seems asinine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what you are asserting is that the U.S. Is NOT " a nation of laws"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am suggesting it was just as illegal for the CSA to secede as it was the thirteen colonies. So it is hypocritical to condemn one but defend the other.
Click to expand...

I agree that such is and was hypocritical, however, secession was not illegal, or unlawful.
The 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutions tenth amendment is the reservation of each States powers not delegated to the Collective in union. No power was delegated to the collective of States in union to prevent a State from exercising it's reserved power to secede. 
The U.S. CONstitution was only the supreme law of the land if there was a law, established wherein it would be supreme. No law or amendment was or is in existence to prevent secession. To establish such would be an admittance of the consolidation of the States into a single State, hence the destruction of the union.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> You HAVE answered my question the way I described above.
> 
> Your argument is over.  No room exists, per the OP, for other pertinent questions.
> 
> Mods, please close the thread.


Good grief, JAKE, are you that over your head that you are begging the moderators to close the thread to bail you out again. How very pathetic.


----------



## James Everett

Steinlight said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> doesn't matter one way or another now
> 
> 
> 
> What's the point of discussing whether it was constitutional or not?
> 
> It wasn't legal for the 13 colonies to secede, no, but they did anyways. Discussing the "legality" of secession seems asinine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what you are asserting is that the U.S. Is NOT " a nation of laws"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am suggesting it was just as illegal for the CSA to secede as it was the thirteen colonies. So it is hypocritical to condemn one but defend the other.
Click to expand...

For something to be illegal, there must first be a law established to make an act illegal. The problem for those who state that secession was illegal, is that they are unable to cite the law that has ever been made that makes secession an illegal act. This JAKE person is is a lightweight with only a topical understanding of his government system. The questions that I posed to him were posed for a purpose. One must determine if the 1787/1789 CONstitution was ratified by the people, or the State legislatures. The answer to this question is of great importance. This JAKE person knew he was in over his head therefore afraid to answer the questions, and called for the moderators to close the thread to save him from further embarrassment.


----------



## Dante

James Everett said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question was settled at the Constitutional Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> No. The question was settled by the Civil War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A question is never settled by violence or disregard of law.
Click to expand...

Of course it is.


----------



## Dante

James Everett said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You HAVE answered my question the way I described above.
> 
> Your argument is over.  No room exists, per the OP, for other pertinent questions.
> 
> Mods, please close the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Good grief, JAKE, are you that over your head that you are begging the moderators to close the thread to bail you out again. How very pathetic.
Click to expand...

just allow jake to give you some...oh never mind. He's a little rat faced tattler


----------



## James Everett

Dante said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question was settled at the Constitutional Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> No. The question was settled by the Civil War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A question is never settled by violence or disregard of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it is.
Click to expand...

No, the war settled nothing. All the war did was begin 150 years of occupation and counting. Many States have been occupied by other States, some for far more years than our Southern Confederate States, and saw an end to that occupation.


----------



## James Everett

Dante said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You HAVE answered my question the way I described above.
> 
> Your argument is over.  No room exists, per the OP, for other pertinent questions.
> 
> Mods, please close the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Good grief, JAKE, are you that over your head that you are begging the moderators to close the thread to bail you out again. How very pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just allow jake to give you some...oh never mind. He's a little rat faced tattler
Click to expand...

The funny thing is, I asked him the question that he claims to have asked me. I never answered my own question to him. He must be on crack.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James Everett said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question was settled at the Constitutional Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> No. The question was settled by the Civil War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A question is never settled by violence or disregard of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the war settled nothing. All the war did was begin 150 years of occupation and counting. Many States have been occupied by other States, some for far more years than our Southern Confederate States, and saw an end to that occupation.
Click to expand...

Yup, the war settled the question.  That you disagree with several hundred million since then is immaterial.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question was settled at the Constitutional Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> No. The question was settled by the Civil War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A question is never settled by violence or disregard of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the war settled nothing. All the war did was begin 150 years of occupation and counting. Many States have been occupied by other States, some for far more years than our Southern Confederate States, and saw an end to that occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, the war settled the question.  That you disagree with several hundred million since then is immaterial.
Click to expand...

Not quite JAKE, 
If that were the case this discussion wouldn't  be taking place. Those secession petitions wouldn't have been passed around a couple of years ago, Ireland would still be occupied by England, Scotland wouldn't have held a secession vote, the Ukraine, East Germany, Poland, the Balkans, all would still be under the occupation of Russia.
The Founders' did not establish a consolidation of the colony's into a single State, each colony became an independent State, the Framers' claimed that the 1787 CONstitution was not consolidating the States into a single State. If a State cannot exit a union, then logic dictates that there has been a consolidation into a single entity. A state cannot exist unless it is a sovereign, if it is not a sovereign, then it is not a State hence falls under the dominion of a sovereign, making it a province of a sovereign. You never answered my question concerning whether the State legislatures ratified the 1787/1789 CONstitution or "we the people" ratified it. Why do you avoid answering this question?


----------



## danielpalos

James Everett said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question was settled at the Constitutional Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> No. The question was settled by the Civil War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A question is never settled by violence or disregard of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the war settled nothing. All the war did was begin 150 years of occupation and counting. Many States have been occupied by other States, some for far more years than our Southern Confederate States, and saw an end to that occupation.
Click to expand...

Not at all; the war proved the soundness of our Founding Fathers wisdom regarding our Second Article of Amendment; that, Only well regulated Militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## JakeStarkey

We are having a discussion only because you do not accept reality, James.

You are being humored only.


----------



## James Everett

danielpalos said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question was settled at the Constitutional Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> No. The question was settled by the Civil War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A question is never settled by violence or disregard of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the war settled nothing. All the war did was begin 150 years of occupation and counting. Many States have been occupied by other States, some for far more years than our Southern Confederate States, and saw an end to that occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all; the war proved the soundness of our Founding Fathers wisdom regarding our Second Article of Amendment; that, Only well regulated Militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...

There is a distinction between the "founding fathers" and the "framers", they are not one and the same. There was a split among the "founders" the "rats" and the "anti-rats" , ratifiers and ant-ratifiers. Among the "anti-rats was Patrick Henry, who stated that the 1787 CONstitution established a government that would not last a century. He was right as a result of Lincoln's rebellion, the system of government that was established by the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution was destroyed, in fact federalism, and the union of States were destroyed. Most refer to "the federal government" today as if a federal system still exists, when in fact all that remains is a national system ( a national government) not a federal government. This may be understood by reading the Federalist# 39 wherein James Madison explains the system that Lincoln destroyed using his rebellion and war on the Confederacy, which was also a war on federalism and the union, facilitating a complete consolidation into a single sovereign State. 
As for the militia; the militia are every able bodied man. A  Well regulated  militia is necessary to a free State. Which States today have a well regulated militia? The National guard is not the militia. "Well regulated" meant well funded, not controlled by the central body of government.
CSAgov.org


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> We are having a discussion only because you do not accept reality, James.
> 
> You are being humored only.


Here is a suggestion JAKE.....
How bout you keep quite until you actually have some input of value to offer.
All you do is spout insult, yet never offer to cite or even actually offer anything of relevance to the discussion. My take is that you are a 18 year old kid troll with nothing better to do than argue without any valuable input to offer. You are very childish. Do you not understand that people see this?


----------



## JakeStarkey

And here at the Big USMB Big Hitz radio, dedicated to James:


----------



## JakeStarkey

James Everett said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are having a discussion only because you do not accept reality, James.
> 
> You are being humored only.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a suggestion JAKE.....
> How bout you keep quite until you actually have some input of value to offer.
> All you do is spout insult, yet never offer to cite or even actually offer anything of relevance to the discussion. My take is that you are a 18 year old kid troll with nothing better to do than argue without any valuable input to offer. You are very childish. Do you not understand that people see this?
Click to expand...

My input is that you are a conspiracy theorist who has been repeatedly and competently and factually rebutted.  You don't like being made fun of.  Tough.  Come up with something of worth.

One, whether or not secession was legal is immaterial.

Two, the CSA and its hopes were obliterated.

Three, the South came back into the Union IAW with imposed requirements.  Only TN escaped the reconstruction requirements because of Johnson and the unionist government.  The southern states are proud and indivisible members of the Union.

Fourth, for you to keep spamming the same old rebutted stuff is trollish.

Got it?  Good.


----------



## danielpalos

James Everett said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. The question was settled by the Civil War
> 
> 
> 
> A question is never settled by violence or disregard of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the war settled nothing. All the war did was begin 150 years of occupation and counting. Many States have been occupied by other States, some for far more years than our Southern Confederate States, and saw an end to that occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all; the war proved the soundness of our Founding Fathers wisdom regarding our Second Article of Amendment; that, Only well regulated Militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a distinction between the "founding fathers" and the "framers", they are not one and the same. There was a split among the "founders" the "rats" and the "anti-rats" , ratifiers and ant-ratifiers. Among the "anti-rats was Patrick Henry, who stated that the 1787 CONstitution established a government that would not last a century. He was right as a result of Lincoln's rebellion, the system of government that was established by the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution was destroyed, in fact federalism, and the union of States were destroyed. Most refer to "the federal government" today as if a federal system still exists, when in fact all that remains is a national system ( a national government) not a federal government. This may be understood by reading the Federalist# 39 wherein James Madison explains the system that Lincoln destroyed using his rebellion and war on the Confederacy, which was also a war on federalism and the union, facilitating a complete consolidation into a single sovereign State.
> As for the militia; the militia are every able bodied man. A  Well regulated  militia is necessary to a free State. Which States today have a well regulated militia? The National guard is not the militia. "Well regulated" meant well funded, not controlled by the central body of government.
> CSAgov.org
Click to expand...

Not at all; the federalists understood their social utopia would be untenable, without additional guarantees to the People due to a lack of social morals for free; and ceded the point and the argument, to the anti-federalists by including our Bill of Rights.

I agree that there is no appeal to ignorance of 10USC311 and that only, well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are having a discussion only because you do not accept reality, James.
> 
> You are being humored only.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a suggestion JAKE.....
> How bout you keep quite until you actually have some input of value to offer.
> All you do is spout insult, yet never offer to cite or even actually offer anything of relevance to the discussion. My take is that you are a 18 year old kid troll with nothing better to do than argue without any valuable input to offer. You are very childish. Do you not understand that people see this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My input is that you are a conspiracy theorist who has been repeatedly and competently and factually rebutted.  You don't like being made fun of.  Tough.  Come up with something of worth.
> 
> One, whether or not secession was legal is immaterial.
> 
> Two, the CSA and its hopes were obliterated.
> 
> Three, the South came back into the Union IAW with imposed requirements.  Only TN escaped the reconstruction requirements because of Johnson and the unionist government.  The southern states are proud and indivisible members of the Union.
> 
> Fourth, for you to keep spamming the same old rebutted stuff is trollish.
> 
> Got it?  Good.
Click to expand...

Jake, 
I am not a conspiracy theorist, I did not claim Lincoln to be conspiring. You just assume such. Nothing that I have posted has been rebutted. Please by all means show me such rebuttal. As for Tennessee rejoining the union, or any other Southern Confederate State.....if ones wife divorced him, and he replaced her with another, he cannot claim her to be the same wife, or that she re/united with him. March of 1863 under occupation and martial law Lincoln's appointed governor demanded all Tennessee govt officials declare an oath to the U,S. Or be arrested, when they refused, they were arrested and replaced. Elections were ordered in which no Confederates or Confederate sympathizers were allowed to vote allowing only a small percentage suffrage, a Convention was held in which no Former confederates or Confederate sympathizers were allowed to attend and our State Constitution/government was replaced.  It was not the same State that joined the union that is now part of the national State. Just as the replaced wife above is not the same as the original. This is why Tennessee remains under occupation, as the current government and constitution are not ours, but a constitution instituted under coercion force and duress, all of which is repugnant to the 1787 U.S. CONstitution. 
You nor anyone else offer no rebuttal to these facts.
Everyone can see that you are the victim of your own folly, in getting in over your educational abilities, thus you act like a child tossing childish insults with no relevant factual input to the thread.


----------



## JakeStarkey

These are your words, not mine: "I did not claim Lincoln to be conspiring. You just assume such."

Everything you have posted as been competently and factually rebutted.

States are not wives, and the derivative analogy fails on lack of relevance.  And if the divorce analogy were relevant, then the divorce was illegal.  TN had no legal right to leave the Union; the war and SCOTUS later made secession irrelevant and illegal.

The TN government was 'unionized' by the legal and moral government, the USA.

Your definition of "occupation" is ridiculous.

You have you theories, but they are not authoritative.

You have your opinion, but you are not an authority.

When you are corrected, you whine and _ad hom_.

Tough to be you, James.  As I have made so many others realize, don't dish what you can't take.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The above is my final commentary about that nonsense of yours.

Now, let's talk about you.

Where is your authority to speak for the CSA?

What authority do you have constitutionally and legally?

You need to answer these questions honestly, and you will keep getting them until you do.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> These are your words, not mine: "I did not claim Lincoln to be conspiring. You just assume such."
> 
> Everything you have posted as been competently and factually rebutted.
> 
> States are not wives, and the derivative analogy fails on lack of relevance.  And if the divorce analogy were relevant, then the divorce was illegal.  TN had no legal right to leave the Union; the war and SCOTUS later made secession irrelevant and illegal.
> 
> The TN government was 'unionized' by the legal and moral government, the USA.
> 
> Your definition of "occupation" is ridiculous.
> 
> You have you theories, but they are not authoritative.
> 
> You have your opinion, but you are not an authority.
> 
> When you are corrected, you whine and _ad hom_.
> 
> Tough to be you, James.  As I have made so many others realize, don't dish what you can't take.


OK, JAKE,
Please rebut the facts that I posted beginning with......
The fact that Andrew Johnson was appointed military governor of Tennessee and that he did not threaten to have the elected officials arrested if they did not sign another of loyalty to the U.S. And when they refused had them arrested and replaced.
Next rebut the fact that our State constitution was replaced under military occupation.
Next rebut the fact that there is no law, or amendment to your CONstitution that mentions secession let alone states that it is an unlawful or illegal act; please cite that law.
JAKE, if these facts have been factually rebutted, then post them, otherwise stop making things up.
Now, you State that YOUR SCOTUS made secession illegal....
Are you aware that YOUR SCOTUS cannot make law, yet you state that YOUR SCOTUS made secession illegal? Please, PLEASE by all means cite that law that YOUR SCOTUS made making secession illegal. This is important information that you hold!
JAKE, how much longer do you plan to continue making a fool of yourself?


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> The above is my final commentary about that nonsense of yours.
> 
> Now, let's talk about you.
> 
> Where is your authority to speak for the CSA?
> 
> What authority do you have constitutionally and legally?
> 
> You need to answer these questions honestly, and you will keep getting them until you do.


Well, JAKE, 
Let's get your first two questions out of the way, with one answer that handles both.....It's called the 1st amendment to YOUR CONstitution.....we call it the right to redress. do you know what redress means?
Also, you just asked about my authority to speak for the CSA, but you have previously claimed it didn't not does exist, yet you acknowledge it with your question.
As for your last and final question, please refer to the first answer which is YOUR first amendment.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James is being the fool thinking he has any relevance on or about the subject.  He _ad homs _then whines when he gets smacked.

He can't take what he dishes.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Johnson acted with the authority and awesome magnificence of the state and federal law.

The authorities were within war time authority to replace the TN constitution.


Since there is no mention of secession in federal law, the procedure was not legal.

Your commentary on SCOTUS and its powers remains ridiculous.  SCOTUS has opined that secession is illegal.  That it is the end of it unless you can a law that rescinds that finding before SCOTUS.

To those of you who have asked me why continue this charade, the answer is that it amuses me to play this charlatan like a weakening trout on the line.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JakeStarkey said:


> Johnson acted with the authority and awesome magnificence of the state and federal law.
> 
> The authorities were within war time authority to replace the TN constitution.
> 
> 
> Since there is no mention of secession in federal law, the procedure was not legal.
> 
> Your commentary on SCOTUS and its powers remains ridiculous.  SCOTUS has opined that secession is illegal.  That it is the end of it unless you can a law that rescinds that finding before SCOTUS.
> 
> To those of you who have asked me why continue this charade, the answer is that it amuses me to play this charlatan like a weakening trout on the line.



Now, James, by what authority do you act?

This must be answered sufficiently before we go any further.


----------



## Dan Daly

DGS49 said:


> (1)  Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union?  Why or why not?  They came in voluntarily, right?



1. There is no Constitutional right to secession - indeed, the Constitution is a document that outlines the rights and powers of the federal government, not those of the people or the States.  But, as outlined in the Declaration of Independence, we have an inherent human right to throw off oppressive government. 

I don't buy into the notion that the "civil war decided the issue" any more than I buy into the notion that beating your wife to a pulp decides the issue of whether she has a right to divorce you.


----------



## natstew

JakeStarkey is proving himself to be the idiot we know he is.


----------



## natstew

JakeStarkey said:


> James clearly does not understand the 10th.  But he is harmless, so let him putter along.


Jake, you are the one who, 'clearly does not understand the 10th'. James has it right on.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sorry, guys, you have lost it.

The Civil War settled all those questions, and I am still waiting for James' "authority" by which he pontificates.

If he is doing it for fun, that's ok, but if he thinks this is anything significant, nope, it is not.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Johnson acted with the authority and awesome magnificence of the state and federal law.
> 
> The authorities were within war time authority to replace the TN constitution.
> 
> 
> Since there is no mention of secession in federal law, the procedure was not legal.
> 
> Your commentary on SCOTUS and its powers remains ridiculous.  SCOTUS has opined that secession is illegal.  That it is the end of it unless you can a law that rescinds that finding before SCOTUS.
> 
> To those of you who have asked me why continue this charade, the answer is that it amuses me to play this charlatan like a weakening trout on the line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, James, by what authority do you act?
> 
> This must be answered sufficiently before we go any further.
Click to expand...

JAKE, 
As I have told you already..,....
YOUR CONstitutions first amendment is by what authority I act while under occupation. You may want to stop for a moment and read it. Also JAKE, no one is asking you why you post. We all know it is because you have been shamed.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Thank you for admitting you have no authority except by OUR constitution.

Thus, it is YOUR Constitution, YOU are subject to it, the South was crushed by the North wielding it, and YOU have forfeited the thread.  You are simply stumbling and bumbling.  Enjoy your mental masturbation but remember that it is always sterile.

Sweet.


----------



## danielpalos

JakeStarkey said:


> Sorry, guys, you have lost it.
> 
> The Civil War settled all those questions, and I am still waiting for James' "authority" by which he pontificates.
> 
> If he is doing it for fun, that's ok, but if he thinks this is anything significant, nope, it is not.


There is no question that the Union refused to recognize the legal fiction of the Southern Cause; and, that Only well regulated Militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union, regardless of all of the other ones, Cause or no Cause.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> Thank you for admitting you have no authority except by OUR constitution.
> 
> Thus, it is YOUR Constitution, YOU are subject to it, the South was crushed by the North wielding it, and YOU have forfeited the thread.  You are simply stumbling and bumbling.  Enjoy your mental masturbation but remember that it is always sterile.
> 
> Sweet.


Well DUH. JAKE, of course I am subject to the laws of YOUR government during the occupation. I never claim different. If you had bothered to read the introduction to the CSAgov.org website, you would have already understood this. You really are slow. Do you ride the short bus to school?
What you seem unable to understand is the meaning of "occupation" anytime one State is under the occupation of another, the people thereof are subjects of and subjected to the occupying government and it's laws.
This however is repugnant to our Declaration of Independence to which the Southern people are the true and rightful heirs. 
If you understood our 1776 declaration, you would understand that rightful government is derived from the consent of the people, not by force, which is what YOUR government imposed, hence turning it's back on OUR Declaration rejecting it in favor of tyranny by imposed force.


----------



## James Everett

danielpalos said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, guys, you have lost it.
> 
> The Civil War settled all those questions, and I am still waiting for James' "authority" by which he pontificates.
> 
> If he is doing it for fun, that's ok, but if he thinks this is anything significant, nope, it is not.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no question that the Union refused to recognize the legal fiction of the Southern Cause; and, that Only well regulated Militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union, regardless of all of the other ones, Cause or no Cause.
Click to expand...

I am not certain what point you are trying to make here.
But what I would state to you is this....
Absent a law making something unlawful or illegal such as a law that makes secession an illegal and unlawful act then we must refer to the first cause which is the fact that there was, not, nor is, a law that states that secession is an illegal and unlawful act. Now that being the case; the States that seceded were no longer subject to the U.S. CONstitution including the second amendment to it, or any of the laws thereof.


----------



## James Everett

danielpalos said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, guys, you have lost it.
> 
> The Civil War settled all those questions, and I am still waiting for James' "authority" by which he pontificates.
> 
> If he is doing it for fun, that's ok, but if he thinks this is anything significant, nope, it is not.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no question that the Union refused to recognize the legal fiction of the Southern Cause; and, that Only well regulated Militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union, regardless of all of the other ones, Cause or no Cause.
Click to expand...

Further, the State governments would never agree to an amendment to the U.S. CONstitution, even today, that would deny their authority in the matter of secession. I doubt that the people would even support that right of the people of their State to secession.


----------



## James Everett

natstew said:


> JakeStarkey is proving himself to be the idiot we know he is.


Agreed.


----------



## Agit8r

DGS49 said:


> (1)  Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union?  Why or why not?  They came in voluntarily, right?
> 
> (2)  What is a "proclamation" (e.g., the "Emancipation Proclamation")?  Does it have the force of law within the United States?  Where, in Article II does the President get this power?  Why did President Lincoln not free the slaves in the Border States?  Was the emancipation legal anywhere?  Why was the thirteenth amendment necessary?
> 
> (3)  On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders?   Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)?  Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?



When people talk about reparations, it refers to: Forty acres and a mule - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

as to your first question, I'll defer to the Federalist author Madison:

"Even in the case of a mere League between nations absolutely independent of each other, neither party has a right to dissolve it at pleasure; each having an equal right to expound its obligations, and neither, consequently a greater right to pronounce the compact void than the other has to insist on the mutual execution of it."
-- *James Madison*; from letter to Nicholas P. Trist (Feb. 15, 1830)


----------



## James Everett

Agit8r said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (1)  Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union?  Why or why not?  They came in voluntarily, right?
> 
> (2)  What is a "proclamation" (e.g., the "Emancipation Proclamation")?  Does it have the force of law within the United States?  Where, in Article II does the President get this power?  Why did President Lincoln not free the slaves in the Border States?  Was the emancipation legal anywhere?  Why was the thirteenth amendment necessary?
> 
> (3)  On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders?   Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)?  Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When people talk about reparations, it refers to: Forty acres and a mule - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> as to your first question, I'll defer to the Federalist author Madison:
> 
> "Even in the case of a mere League between nations absolutely independent of each other, neither party has a right to dissolve it at pleasure; each having an equal right to expound its obligations, and neither, consequently a greater right to pronounce the compact void than the other has to insist on the mutual execution of it."
> -- *James Madison*; from letter to Nicholas P. Trist (Feb. 15, 1830)
Click to expand...

Forty acres and a mule did not last, as once the occupying U.S. Govt saw that the freed slaves were not interested in using that forty acres and a mule to grow cotton (which had been a major commodity for trade with Europe), because their concern was in growing food for their families, the occupying U.S. Govt reneged on that promise. The occupying govt's economy was in shambles and cotton was needed to restore that economy, therefore the land was given back to the former owners, and share cropping was born.
As for Madison' letter to Mr. Trist, that one has been used over and again as a pathetic attempt at evidence of a none existent law. First, one must understand that Madison was a nationalist and one of the authors of "the Virginia plan" which was a plan to abandon federalism and the federal system that existed under the Articles of Confederation. This National plan was to consolidate the States into a single State under a single national government. The reason for this plan was what established the split among the Founders'. Some such as Madison, Washington, and Hamilton, wanted to establish a nation to rival the power, grandeur, and splendor of the monarchies in England and France, while others wanted to maintain the simple confederacy of States under the Articles, for the purpose of protecting one another and individual liberty.
Patrick Henry explained .......
" all those nation that have gone in search of power, grandeur, and splendor, have all fallen a sacrifice: While they acquired those visionary blessings, they lost their freedom."
Madison, and the others Virginia plan for a National government was soundly rejected at the 1787 convention.
Madison, and cohorts were forced to compromise thus establishing a partially federal system and a partially national system in the U.S. CONstitution. This was a thorn in Madison's side, and the reason for his sour grapes, when it came to the States protecting their sovereignty. 
Madison, and cohorts did not immediately get their way, though that day was coming via Lincoln's rebellion. 
Patrick Henry also stated, concerning the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, that this new government.....
Cannot last, it will not last a century and will end in a violent and bloody struggle.......
Now I paraphrased here, as I do not have his direct wording in. Front of me at the moment, however the just is there and I would be off only slightly in my wording.
90 years later we had Lincoln's rebellion which ushered in the end of federalism and the beginning of a wholly national system that Madison desired under the Virginia plan, and a consolidation of the States under that wholly national system, wherein the government today is one of the power, grandeur and splendor of which Patrick Henry warned wherein the people have lost their freedom, and experience a government in a state of perpetual war and hegemony wielding that power, grandeur and splendor like a big club.
Under international law, and party may exit a multi-lateral treaty, and the other party's may remain and maintain that treaty between themselves or nullify it completely.
The States would not voluntary consolidate themselves, hence the tenth amendment was necessary before they would consider ratification. 
Madison was just spouting off his nationalist opinion to Mr. Trist, opinions are a dime a dozen, everyone has one, including me, however such is only the opinion of an individual, Madison's opinion was just that, HIS. 
One must consider the treaty/compact/charter/ Constitution, and what the States agreed to therein, not one mans opinion.
Here the tenth amendment agreed to by the State before they would ratify trumps Madison's opinion.


----------



## James Everett

Agit8r said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (1)  Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union?  Why or why not?  They came in voluntarily, right?
> 
> (2)  What is a "proclamation" (e.g., the "Emancipation Proclamation")?  Does it have the force of law within the United States?  Where, in Article II does the President get this power?  Why did President Lincoln not free the slaves in the Border States?  Was the emancipation legal anywhere?  Why was the thirteenth amendment necessary?
> 
> (3)  On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders?   Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)?  Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When people talk about reparations, it refers to: Forty acres and a mule - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> as to your first question, I'll defer to the Federalist author Madison:
> 
> "Even in the case of a mere League between nations absolutely independent of each other, neither party has a right to dissolve it at pleasure; each having an equal right to expound its obligations, and neither, consequently a greater right to pronounce the compact void than the other has to insist on the mutual execution of it."
> -- *James Madison*; from letter to Nicholas P. Trist (Feb. 15, 1830)
Click to expand...

I forgot to add, that Alexander Hamilton stated in #32 that the plan called for only 
"a partial consolidation of the States"
A complete consolidation would mean that no a State could exit the union.


----------



## Agit8r

James Everett said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (1)  Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union?  Why or why not?  They came in voluntarily, right?
> 
> 
> 
> (2)  What is a "proclamation" (e.g., the "Emancipation Proclamation")?  Does it have the force of law within the United States?  Where, in Article II does the President get this power?  Why did President Lincoln not free the slaves in the Border States?  Was the emancipation legal anywhere?  Why was the thirteenth amendment necessary?
> 
> (3)  On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders?   Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)?  Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When people talk about reparations, it refers to: Forty acres and a mule - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> as to your first question, I'll defer to the Federalist author Madison:
> 
> "Even in the case of a mere League between nations absolutely independent of each other, neither party has a right to dissolve it at pleasure; each having an equal right to expound its obligations, and neither, consequently a greater right to pronounce the compact void than the other has to insist on the mutual execution of it."
> -- *James Madison*; from letter to Nicholas P. Trist (Feb. 15, 1830)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Forty acres and a mule did not last, as once the occupying U.S. Govt saw that the freed slaves were not interested in using that forty acres and a mule to grow cotton (which had been a major commodity for trade with Europe), because their concern was in growing food for their families, the occupying U.S. Govt reneged on that promise. The occupying govt's economy was in shambles and cotton was needed to restore that economy, therefore the land was given back to the former owners, and share cropping was born.
> As for Madison' letter to Mr. Trist, that one has been used over and again as a pathetic attempt at evidence of a none existent law. First, one must understand that Madison was a nationalist and one of the authors of "the Virginia plan" which was a plan to abandon federalism and the federal system that existed under the Articles of Confederation. This National plan was to consolidate the States into a single State under a single national government. The reason for this plan was what established the split among the Founders'. Some such as Madison, Washington, and Hamilton, wanted to establish a nation to rival the power, grandeur, and splendor of the monarchies in England and France, while others wanted to maintain the simple confederacy of States under the Articles, for the purpose of protecting one another and individual liberty.
> Patrick Henry explained .......
> " all those nation that have gone in search of power, grandeur, and splendor, have all fallen a sacrifice: While they acquired those visionary blessings, they lost their freedom."
> Madison, and the others Virginia plan for a National government was soundly rejected at the 1787 convention.
> Madison, and cohorts were forced to compromise thus establishing a partially federal system and a partially national system in the U.S. CONstitution. This was a thorn in Madison's side, and the reason for his sour grapes, when it came to the States protecting their sovereignty.
> Madison, and cohorts did not immediately get their way, though that day was coming via Lincoln's rebellion.
> Patrick Henry also stated, concerning the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, that this new government.....
> Cannot last, it will not last a century and will end in a violent and bloody struggle.......
> Now I paraphrased here, as I do not have his direct wording in. Front of me at the moment, however the just is there and I would be off only slightly in my wording.
> 90 years later we had Lincoln's rebellion which ushered in the end of federalism and the beginning of a wholly national system that Madison desired under the Virginia plan, and a consolidation of the States under that wholly national system, wherein the government today is one of the power, grandeur and splendor of which Patrick Henry warned wherein the people have lost their freedom, and experience a government in a state of perpetual war and hegemony wielding that power, grandeur and splendor like a big club.
> Under international law, and party may exit a multi-lateral treaty, and the other party's may remain and maintain that treaty between themselves or nullify it completely.
> The States would not voluntary consolidate themselves, hence the tenth amendment was necessary before they would consider ratification.
> Madison was just spouting off his nationalist opinion to Mr. Trist, opinions are a dime a dozen, everyone has one, including me, however such is only the opinion of an individual, Madison's opinion was just that, HIS.
> One must consider the treaty/compact/charter/ Constitution, and what the States agreed to therein, not one mans opinion.
> Here the tenth amendment agreed to by the State before they would ratify trumps Madison's opinion.
Click to expand...


Funny thing though, is that it was Patrick Henry whose side lost.  He refused to ratify. But a "more perfect" union was cemented anyway.

As far as 40 Acres, It doesn't appear to have ever been official policy.  Reconstruction employment programs tended to involve employment by carpetbaggers.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Agit8r in far fewer words with far greater vision easily dismissed James' puffery.


----------



## James Everett

Agit8r said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (1)  Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union?  Why or why not?  They came in voluntarily, right?
> 
> 
> 
> (2)  What is a "proclamation" (e.g., the "Emancipation Proclamation")?  Does it have the force of law within the United States?  Where, in Article II does the President get this power?  Why did President Lincoln not free the slaves in the Border States?  Was the emancipation legal anywhere?  Why was the thirteenth amendment necessary?
> 
> (3)  On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders?   Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)?  Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When people talk about reparations, it refers to: Forty acres and a mule - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> as to your first question, I'll defer to the Federalist author Madison:
> 
> "Even in the case of a mere League between nations absolutely independent of each other, neither party has a right to dissolve it at pleasure; each having an equal right to expound its obligations, and neither, consequently a greater right to pronounce the compact void than the other has to insist on the mutual execution of it."
> -- *James Madison*; from letter to Nicholas P. Trist (Feb. 15, 1830)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Forty acres and a mule did not last, as once the occupying U.S. Govt saw that the freed slaves were not interested in using that forty acres and a mule to grow cotton (which had been a major commodity for trade with Europe), because their concern was in growing food for their families, the occupying U.S. Govt reneged on that promise. The occupying govt's economy was in shambles and cotton was needed to restore that economy, therefore the land was given back to the former owners, and share cropping was born.
> As for Madison' letter to Mr. Trist, that one has been used over and again as a pathetic attempt at evidence of a none existent law. First, one must understand that Madison was a nationalist and one of the authors of "the Virginia plan" which was a plan to abandon federalism and the federal system that existed under the Articles of Confederation. This National plan was to consolidate the States into a single State under a single national government. The reason for this plan was what established the split among the Founders'. Some such as Madison, Washington, and Hamilton, wanted to establish a nation to rival the power, grandeur, and splendor of the monarchies in England and France, while others wanted to maintain the simple confederacy of States under the Articles, for the purpose of protecting one another and individual liberty.
> Patrick Henry explained .......
> " all those nation that have gone in search of power, grandeur, and splendor, have all fallen a sacrifice: While they acquired those visionary blessings, they lost their freedom."
> Madison, and the others Virginia plan for a National government was soundly rejected at the 1787 convention.
> Madison, and cohorts were forced to compromise thus establishing a partially federal system and a partially national system in the U.S. CONstitution. This was a thorn in Madison's side, and the reason for his sour grapes, when it came to the States protecting their sovereignty.
> Madison, and cohorts did not immediately get their way, though that day was coming via Lincoln's rebellion.
> Patrick Henry also stated, concerning the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, that this new government.....
> Cannot last, it will not last a century and will end in a violent and bloody struggle.......
> Now I paraphrased here, as I do not have his direct wording in. Front of me at the moment, however the just is there and I would be off only slightly in my wording.
> 90 years later we had Lincoln's rebellion which ushered in the end of federalism and the beginning of a wholly national system that Madison desired under the Virginia plan, and a consolidation of the States under that wholly national system, wherein the government today is one of the power, grandeur and splendor of which Patrick Henry warned wherein the people have lost their freedom, and experience a government in a state of perpetual war and hegemony wielding that power, grandeur and splendor like a big club.
> Under international law, and party may exit a multi-lateral treaty, and the other party's may remain and maintain that treaty between themselves or nullify it completely.
> The States would not voluntary consolidate themselves, hence the tenth amendment was necessary before they would consider ratification.
> Madison was just spouting off his nationalist opinion to Mr. Trist, opinions are a dime a dozen, everyone has one, including me, however such is only the opinion of an individual, Madison's opinion was just that, HIS.
> One must consider the treaty/compact/charter/ Constitution, and what the States agreed to therein, not one mans opinion.
> Here the tenth amendment agreed to by the State before they would ratify trumps Madison's opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny thing though, is that it was Patrick Henry whose side lost.  He refused to ratify. But a "more perfect" union was cemented anyway.
> 
> As far as 40 Acres, It doesn't appear to have ever been official policy.  Reconstruction employment programs tended to involve employment by carpetbaggers.
Click to expand...

No, 40 and a mule was just another broken promise.
And the CONstitution was ratified by who?
The State legislatures or the people?
Also it was ratified with the States addition of the tenth amendment thus retaining their power of exiting the union individually.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James, you have failed in your arguments.  You don't like having that said, but you will eventually have to face up to that fact.  Agit8r did it so easily with so few words that the reader had to laugh at you.

There is no CSA.  You have admitted your are subject to our Constitution and our SCOTUS and our government.  Tought to be you, bud.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> Agit8r in far fewer words with far greater vision easily dismissed James' puffery.


Oh, here goes cheerleader JAKE. Unfortunately those few words are like today's political candidates talking points which hold only half truths which equal whole lies. 
One cannot get around the fact that when a union is by force it is a tyranny,hence a consolidation, not a union of States, but a consolidation into a single State, hence no longer plural as in The United States, but rather the State of America. You know? Like that "evil empire" the former Soviet Union" which was also held together by force.
JAKE, 
Do you hold Pom Pom's and do the splits to?


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> James, you have failed in your arguments.  You don't like having that said, but you will eventually have to face up to that fact.  Agit8r did it so easily with so few words that the reader had to laugh at you.
> 
> There is no CSA.  You have admitted your are subject to our Constitution and our SCOTUS and our government.  Tought to be you, bud.


Oh JAKE the cheerleader, he gave his spill, then I rebutted with the facts and then he basically did just as you, he rebutted with the equivalent of 
"So what."
Which is not a rebuttal  refuting the facts that I presented. 
Anyone can respond as do you, presenting no facts, but such does not help your case.
Again, you are base in knowledge on the subject. Please educate yourself and try again.


----------



## JakeStarkey

When We the People use the states as our agents to create a Republic, no tyranny is enacted. You have accepted our Constitution and our SCOTUS, thus you accept that you are an American. You have all the same rights and obligations as all other citizens. Such is your life; it is the way it is.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> When We the People use the states as our agents to create a Republic, no tyranny is enacted. You have accepted our Constitution and our SCOTUS, thus you accept that you are an American. You have all the same rights and obligations as all other citizens. Such is your life; it is the way it is.


So, JAKE,
We arrive back at the questions that I asked you to answer yet you dodged them.
You state that the people used the states to ratify YOUR CONstitution.
As I have given you the definition of a State; which is .....
" A mode of  government"
Is it then your assertion that the State legislatures ratified YOUR CONstitution?
Or was it ratified by ..."We the people"?
These are simple questions to which you should have no problem, even in your base knowledge on the subject, answering.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> When We the People use the states as our agents to create a Republic, no tyranny is enacted. You have accepted our Constitution and our SCOTUS, thus you accept that you are an American. You have all the same rights and obligations as all other citizens. Such is your life; it is the way it is.


Oh and let's get to you Stating that I have accepted being an American...
There is a difference between an American and a U.S. Citizen hence the 14 th amendment.


----------



## JakeStarkey

All of your questions were answered, James.

You admitted you are subject to the Constitution and its Republic, thus you are a citizen.  Try telling a judge you are not a citizen and not subject to American law.  

Thus, you are engaged in a personal exercise of whatever merit you find.

It is meaningless.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> All of your questions were answered, James.
> 
> You admitted you are subject to the Constitution and its Republic, thus you are a citizen.  Try telling a judge you are not a citizen and not subject to American law.
> 
> Thus, you are engaged in a personal exercise of whatever merit you find.
> 
> It is meaningless.


JAKE, JAKE, JAKE, 
I have already told you time and again that as a result of the occupation we are all subject to YOUR governments laws during occupation, it's called subjugation.
NO, you have yet to answer the questions that I asked you, because you are afraid to answer them.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> All of your questions were answered, James.
> 
> You admitted you are subject to the Constitution and its Republic, thus you are a citizen.  Try telling a judge you are not a citizen and not subject to American law.
> 
> Thus, you are engaged in a personal exercise of whatever merit you find.
> 
> It is meaningless.


Tell ya what JAKE,
Since you are either afraid to answer, or simply don't know the answer to the questions that I asked you, I offer the same to anyone else who wishes to answer.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James Everett said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> When We the People use the states as our agents to create a Republic, no tyranny is enacted. You have accepted our Constitution and our SCOTUS, thus you accept that you are an American. You have all the same rights and obligations as all other citizens. Such is your life; it is the way it is.
> 
> 
> 
> So, JAKE,
> We arrive back at the questions that I asked you to answer yet you dodged them.
> You state that the people used the states to ratify YOUR CONstitution.
> As I have given you the definition of a State; which is .....
> " A mode of  government"
> Is it then your assertion that the State legislatures ratified YOUR CONstitution?
> Or was it ratified by ..."We the people"?
> These are simple questions to which you should have no problem, even in your base knowledge on the subject, answering.
Click to expand...

Quit lying.  You admitted that it is your Constitution.  There is no argument.  You are simply yelling.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James Everett said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> When We the People use the states as our agents to create a Republic, no tyranny is enacted. You have accepted our Constitution and our SCOTUS, thus you accept that you are an American. You have all the same rights and obligations as all other citizens. Such is your life; it is the way it is.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and let's get to you Stating that I have accepted being an American...
> There is a difference between an American and a U.S. Citizen hence the 14 th amendment.
Click to expand...

Nope, not at all.  You can yell all you want.  You are an American and a U.S. citizen.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You have been told over and over what are the answers.  You don't like the truth of them.  Your argument on the 14th is more than wrong, it is stupidity itself.  You are an American and U.S. citizen.  Now you may start yelling.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> You have been told over and over what are the answers.  You don't like the truth of them.  Your argument on the 14th is more than wrong, it is stupidity itself.  You are an American and U.S. citizen.  Now you may start yelling.


JAKE,
YOU are a LIAR, and anyone can see simply by simply scrolling through this thread to see that you are a liar. You have never answered those two simple questions. 
Why are you so afraid?
You do realize that anyone can see this by viewing the thread?
And please don't beg the moderators to remove this thread to hide the fact that you are a liar.
Just answer the questions.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> When We the People use the states as our agents to create a Republic, no tyranny is enacted. You have accepted our Constitution and our SCOTUS, thus you accept that you are an American. You have all the same rights and obligations as all other citizens. Such is your life; it is the way it is.
> 
> 
> 
> So, JAKE,
> We arrive back at the questions that I asked you to answer yet you dodged them.
> You state that the people used the states to ratify YOUR CONstitution.
> As I have given you the definition of a State; which is .....
> " A mode of  government"
> Is it then your assertion that the State legislatures ratified YOUR CONstitution?
> Or was it ratified by ..."We the people"?
> These are simple questions to which you should have no problem, even in your base knowledge on the subject, answering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quit lying.  You admitted that it is your Constitution.  There is no argument.  You are simply yelling.
Click to expand...

No I never said it is is my CONstitution, 
I said that under the occupation we Are forced under YOUR laws. 
You are dense.
As well as being a LIAR.


----------



## danielpalos

I believe the Constitutional issue was eminent domain for policies public.  The Union should have compensated the South for their loss of that "means of production" but for a lack of better Statesmanship.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You, James, are lying when you now say you have not admitted that you are both an American and a citizen of the USA, which in fact you did earlier.

Your analysis of the 14th and how it applies to you is laughable.

Email SCOTUS and tell them they got it wrong.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> You, James, are lying when you now say you have not admitted that you are both an American and a citizen of the USA, which in fact you did earlier.
> 
> Your analysis of the 14th and how it applies to you is laughable.
> 
> Email SCOTUS and tell them they got it wrong.


You said that I claimed that YOUR CONstitution is my Constitution which is a lie. 
I never claimed such. 
You are A LIAR.


----------



## James Everett

danielpalos said:


> I believe the Constitutional issue was eminent domain for policies public.  The Union should have compensated the South for their loss of that "means of production" but for a lack of better Statesmanship.


Actually the United States never held municipal jurisdiction within a State. 
See Pollards Lessse v Hagan 1840 one of many such SCOTUS  opinions on the issue.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James Everett said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You, James, are lying when you now say you have not admitted that you are both an American and a citizen of the USA, which in fact you did earlier.
> 
> Your analysis of the 14th and how it applies to you is laughable.
> 
> Email SCOTUS and tell them they got it wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> You said that I claimed that YOUR CONstitution is my Constitution which is a lie.  I never claimed such.  You are A LIAR.
Click to expand...

You admitted such in your comments.  Yes, as an American and an USA citizen, it is your Constitution.  We are brothers politically, James.


----------



## there4eyeM

In looking at the US Constitution that went into effect in 1789, I noticed an interesting detail.

When we discuss Constitutional Law, we always get back to 'original intent'. In the Preamble, it is mentioned that the proposed document is to form 'a more perfect Union'. The Founders wanted to make the Union that was already established better.

The Articles of Confederation created a Perpetual Union. This is clearly what the Founding Fathers intended to make more perfect.

What does perpetual mean? States that joined that union did not have the legal right to end the perpetuity.


----------



## James Everett

there4eyeM said:


> In looking at the US Constitution that went into effect in 1789, I noticed an interesting detail.
> 
> When we discuss Constitutional Law, we always get back to 'original intent'. In the Preamble, it is mentioned that the proposed document is to form 'a more perfect Union'. The Founders wanted to make the Union that was already established better.
> 
> The Articles of Confederation created a Perpetual Union. This is clearly what the Founding Fathers intended to make more perfect.
> 
> What does perpetual mean? States that joined that union did not have the legal right to end the perpetuity.


You have to problems. 
First, if the perpetuity was carried over, it was not mentioned in the 1787 CONstitution, and if indeed the State legislatures ratified that CONstitution, then they would have been aware of this fact, and threats to secede long before 1860 would not have been made. Next we must consider that  other articles could have been carried over if we assume that some were, then we must question that other articles that were not enumerated may have been as well. Without enumeration how do we assertion which were and which were not? 
Next the questions that I asked JAKE become important.....
Was the 1787 CONstitution ratified by the State legislatures or the people?
Next was the union a union of States?
A State is defined as ....
"A mode of government"
If the State governments are not participants in the union between themselves, then how can there be a union of States?


----------



## James Everett

there4eyeM said:


> In looking at the US Constitution that went into effect in 1789, I noticed an interesting detail.
> 
> When we discuss Constitutional Law, we always get back to 'original intent'. In the Preamble, it is mentioned that the proposed document is to form 'a more perfect Union'. The Founders wanted to make the Union that was already established better.
> 
> The Articles of Confederation created a Perpetual Union. This is clearly what the Founding Fathers intended to make more perfect.
> 
> What does perpetual mean? States that joined that union did not have the legal right to end the perpetuity.


You mentioned the preamble, therefore in the preamble it States.....
"We the people"
If it was a CONstitution of "we the people, then it was not a union of the States, but rather a union of the people, hence the perpetuity of the States indeed with the preamble.


----------



## there4eyeM

The Constitution under which the United States existed was a 'more perfect' form of the original Union. If the United States existed, it existed with a perpetual Union.


----------



## James Everett

there4eyeM said:


> The Constitution under which the United States existed was a 'more perfect' form of the original Union. If the United States existed, it existed with a perpetual Union.


Here again is where we come to that important question that JAKE refused to answer......
Did the State legislatures ratify that CONstitution or did "we the people" ratify?


----------



## JakeStarkey

I did answer it, so stop lying, James.

We the People using the states as our agents ratified the Constitution.

Agit8r and there4eyeM have rebutted your arguments as well.

If a supposed CSA is relying on you, then it's non-existence is forever guaranteed.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> I did answer it, so stop lying, James.
> 
> We the People using the states as our agents ratified the Constitution.
> 
> Agit8r and there4eyeM have rebutted your arguments as well.
> 
> If a supposed CSA is relying on you, then it's non-existence is forever guaranteed.


That's not an answer JAKE. 
I will put it to you this way....
The people could not ratify the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution.
If the State legislatures ratified then there would be a record in each State of that vote, yet it never occurred. 
JAKE, you have avoided answering the question and tried to have it both ways: you cannot.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You set a standard that is not required.

The questions have been fully answered to the satisfaction of a reasonable standard.

Time for the "CSA" to find a new advocate.

You don't have what it takes.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> You set a standard that is not required.
> 
> The questions have been fully answered to the satisfaction of a reasonable standard.
> 
> Time for the "CSA" to find a new advocate.
> 
> You don't have what it takes.


JAKE,
Read the Articles. 
Article XIII States that any alteration in the articles require confirmation by each States legislature, hence a vote was required by each States legislature on alteration of each article that was altered. If such votes were taken, please cite them. 
Seems your USA needs a new spokesman because you lack the knowledge to rise up to the job.


----------



## danielpalos

Ratification of our new fangled federal Constitution completes the expiry of the US under the Articles.


----------



## James Everett

danielpalos said:


> Ratification of our new fangled federal Constitution completes the expiry of the US under the Articles.


But, again it was the LAW that each States legislature was required to ratify by vote any alteration in the Constitution, which at that time were the Articles of Confederation, to do otherwise was rebellion to the lawful authority of the Constitution. So was the 1787/1789 an illegal and unlawful act of rebellion? 
In order to acquire redress, the Articles of confederation must be restored, this is the purpose for the restoration of our 1861 Confederacy so that it may be used as a legal means to return to the Articles via the legal amendment process.
All of this May be found at CSAgov.org


----------



## danielpalos

James Everett said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ratification of our new fangled federal Constitution completes the expiry of the US under the Articles.
> 
> 
> 
> But, again it was the LAW that each States legislature was required to ratify by vote any alteration in the Constitution, which at that time were the Articles of Confederation, to do otherwise was rebellion to the lawful authority of the Constitution. So was the 1787/1789 an illegal and unlawful act of rebellion?
> In order to acquire redress, the Articles of confederation must be restored, this is the purpose for the restoration of our 1861 Confederacy so that it may be used as a legal means to return to the Articles via the legal amendment process.
> All of this May be found at CSAgov.org
Click to expand...

Article 7 covers it: The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.


----------



## James Everett

danielpalos said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ratification of our new fangled federal Constitution completes the expiry of the US under the Articles.
> 
> 
> 
> But, again it was the LAW that each States legislature was required to ratify by vote any alteration in the Constitution, which at that time were the Articles of Confederation, to do otherwise was rebellion to the lawful authority of the Constitution. So was the 1787/1789 an illegal and unlawful act of rebellion?
> In order to acquire redress, the Articles of confederation must be restored, this is the purpose for the restoration of our 1861 Confederacy so that it may be used as a legal means to return to the Articles via the legal amendment process.
> All of this May be found at CSAgov.org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Article 7 covers it: The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.
Click to expand...

*Not hardly.
The Articles of Confederation were in force at that time.......
Article XIII States....
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.*
*What you are quoting is Article VII from the 1787/1789 CONstitution, which was NOT a legal alteration of the Lawful authority of the 1781 Constitution, because such an alteration as calling for ratification of the conventions of nine States was a violation of Article XIII Of the existing Constitution which required the Confirmation of every States legislature.
Before an alteration calling for only the conventions of nine States to ratify, NOT even  one jot or one tittle could be altered until EVER STATE LEGISLATURE RATIFIED THE ALTERATION OF ONE LETTER, LET ALONE CHANGING THE ENTIRE PROCESS OF ALTERING THEM OUT OF EXISTENCE. 
It is a little difficult for one to state that secession was an illegal and unlawful act, when no law was established to make secession unlawful or illegal, YET THE 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution was established BY A COMPLETELY UNLAWFUL AND ILLEGAL ACT, VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTIONS ARTICLE XIII . *


----------



## danielpalos

Ratifying our federal Constitution automatically "closed that position" on the Articles of Confederation.


----------



## James Everett

danielpalos said:


> Ratifying our federal Constitution automatically "closed that position" on the Articles of Confederation.


Not hardly, as I have shewn, such was an illegal and unlawful act in violation of the Constitution.
Also the Articles were a federal Constitution, under a wholly federal system. The 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution instituted only a partially federal system cobbled together with a partially National .system which now as a result of Lincoln's rebellion is a wholly national system.
Interestingly the U.S. CONstitution was established in violation of law our Southern States secession's were not, hence we have a legal right to restore our Confederacy and use our Constitution as a legal means to amend our way back to the legal U.S. Constitution which are the Articles of Confederation.


----------



## danielpalos

James Everett said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ratifying our federal Constitution automatically "closed that position" on the Articles of Confederation.
> 
> 
> 
> Not hardly, as I have shewn, such was an illegal and unlawful act in violation of the Constitution.
> Also the Articles were a federal Constitution, under a wholly federal system. The 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution instituted only a partially federal system cobbled together with a partially National .system which now as a result of Lincoln's rebellion is a wholly national system.
> Interestingly the U.S. CONstitution was established in violation of law our Southern States secession's were not, hence we have a legal right to restore our Confederacy and use our Constitution as a legal means to amend our way back to the legal U.S. Constitution which are the Articles of Confederation.
Click to expand...

Article 6 claims otherwise.


----------



## James Everett

danielpalos said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ratifying our federal Constitution automatically "closed that position" on the Articles of Confederation.
> 
> 
> 
> Not hardly, as I have shewn, such was an illegal and unlawful act in violation of the Constitution.
> Also the Articles were a federal Constitution, under a wholly federal system. The 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution instituted only a partially federal system cobbled together with a partially National .system which now as a result of Lincoln's rebellion is a wholly national system.
> Interestingly the U.S. CONstitution was established in violation of law our Southern States secession's were not, hence we have a legal right to restore our Confederacy and use our Constitution as a legal means to amend our way back to the legal U.S. Constitution which are the Articles of Confederation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Article 6 claims otherwise.
Click to expand...

Everything that was done since the illegal act in violation of Article XIII is the result of the poison fruit of that illegal act.
As for Article VI of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution...
It does not apply to secession as there was no law, or Amendment making secession an illegal act hence no lawful authority within that CONstitution. Further......
Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17 of the U.S. Constitution, which read as follows:

*“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.”
Here we see that any jurisdiction of the States as a collective in government formation has* *NO JURISDICTION OUTSIDE OF THE TEN MILES SQUARE THAT IS THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND IS NON-EXISTENT EXCEPT WITHIN A U.S. FORT, AN ARSENAL, A U.S. GOVERNMENT BUILDING, MAGAZINE, OR DOCK YARD, THUS ANY JURISDICTION BEYOND THAT IS THAT OF EACH STATE RESPECTIVELY/INDIVIDUALLY*.

*The reason for the inclusion of this clause in the Constitution was and is obvious. Under the Articles of Confederation, the States retained full and complete jurisdiction over lands and persons within their borders. The Congress under the Articles was merely a body which represented and acted as agents of the separate States for external affairs, and had no jurisdiction within the States.*


----------



## there4eyeM

Even if the 'new' Constitution were to be considered not ratified, the original Articles of Confederation, forming a perpetual Union, would remain in place. There would be no provision for legal separation.


----------



## danielpalos

James Everett said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ratifying our federal Constitution automatically "closed that position" on the Articles of Confederation.
> 
> 
> 
> Not hardly, as I have shewn, such was an illegal and unlawful act in violation of the Constitution.
> Also the Articles were a federal Constitution, under a wholly federal system. The 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution instituted only a partially federal system cobbled together with a partially National .system which now as a result of Lincoln's rebellion is a wholly national system.
> Interestingly the U.S. CONstitution was established in violation of law our Southern States secession's were not, hence we have a legal right to restore our Confederacy and use our Constitution as a legal means to amend our way back to the legal U.S. Constitution which are the Articles of Confederation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Article 6 claims otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything that was done since the illegal act in violation of Article XIII is the result of the poison fruit of that illegal act.
> As for Article VI of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution...
> It does not apply to secession as there was no law, or Amendment making secession an illegal act hence no lawful authority within that CONstitution. Further......
> Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17 of the U.S. Constitution, which read as follows:
> 
> *“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.”
> Here we see that any jurisdiction of the States as a collective in government formation has* *NO JURISDICTION OUTSIDE OF THE TEN MILES SQUARE THAT IS THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND IS NON-EXISTENT EXCEPT WITHIN A U.S. FORT, AN ARSENAL, A U.S. GOVERNMENT BUILDING, MAGAZINE, OR DOCK YARD, THUS ANY JURISDICTION BEYOND THAT IS THAT OF EACH STATE RESPECTIVELY/INDIVIDUALLY*.
> 
> *The reason for the inclusion of this clause in the Constitution was and is obvious. Under the Articles of Confederation, the States retained full and complete jurisdiction over lands and persons within their borders. The Congress under the Articles was merely a body which represented and acted as agents of the separate States for external affairs, and had no jurisdiction within the States.*
Click to expand...

You still haven't convinced me that establishing a new government doesn't automatically, "close the position" on the previous government.  

Articles 6 and 7 of our federal Constitution are all that is needed to transition to a new government:

Here is an example from just Article 6:

_All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation._
_
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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States._


----------



## James Everett

there4eyeM said:


> Even if the 'new' Constitution were to be considered not ratified, the original Articles of Confederation, forming a perpetual Union, would remain in place. There would be no provision for legal separation.


That is the purpose of the restoration effort. The whole purpose is to return to the Articles of Confederation under a the federal system that does not exist under your current government.
One cannot argue that the secession's of the Southern Confederate States was an illegal act using a constitution that was illegally ratified (Hence null and void) and that illegal CONstitution did NOT nor does not contain a law against secession, and then claim that the union is perpetual using a constitution that was violated and claimed to be replaced with a new illegally ratified CONstitution that was no longer in force through an illegal act.


----------



## there4eyeM

What is meant by "your constitution"?


----------



## danielpalos

No one has explained why ratification of our new Constitution didn't automatically "close the position" on the previous constitution as stated in Article 7 and Article 6.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James Everett said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You set a standard that is not required.
> 
> The questions have been fully answered to the satisfaction of a reasonable standard.
> 
> Time for the "CSA" to find a new advocate.
> 
> You don't have what it takes.
> 
> 
> 
> JAKE,
> Read the Articles.
> Article XIII States that any alteration in the articles require confirmation by each States legislature, hence a vote was required by each States legislature on alteration of each article that was altered. If such votes were taken, please cite them.
> Seems your USA needs a new spokesman because you lack the knowledge to rise up to the job.
Click to expand...

We are talking about the Constitution, and you are talking about the Articles.  Hint: they are not the same.  Truth: the states as our Agents of We the People ratified the Constitution, per Article 7.  As long as you are the advocate of the 'CSA', America is safe.


----------



## James Everett

danielpalos said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ratifying our federal Constitution automatically "closed that position" on the Articles of Confederation.
> 
> 
> 
> Not hardly, as I have shewn, such was an illegal and unlawful act in violation of the Constitution.
> Also the Articles were a federal Constitution, under a wholly federal system. The 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution instituted only a partially federal system cobbled together with a partially National .system which now as a result of Lincoln's rebellion is a wholly national system.
> Interestingly the U.S. CONstitution was established in violation of law our Southern States secession's were not, hence we have a legal right to restore our Confederacy and use our Constitution as a legal means to amend our way back to the legal U.S. Constitution which are the Articles of Confederation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Article 6 claims otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything that was done since the illegal act in violation of Article XIII is the result of the poison fruit of that illegal act.
> As for Article VI of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution...
> It does not apply to secession as there was no law, or Amendment making secession an illegal act hence no lawful authority within that CONstitution. Further......
> Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17 of the U.S. Constitution, which read as follows:
> 
> *“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.”
> Here we see that any jurisdiction of the States as a collective in government formation has* *NO JURISDICTION OUTSIDE OF THE TEN MILES SQUARE THAT IS THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND IS NON-EXISTENT EXCEPT WITHIN A U.S. FORT, AN ARSENAL, A U.S. GOVERNMENT BUILDING, MAGAZINE, OR DOCK YARD, THUS ANY JURISDICTION BEYOND THAT IS THAT OF EACH STATE RESPECTIVELY/INDIVIDUALLY*.
> 
> *The reason for the inclusion of this clause in the Constitution was and is obvious. Under the Articles of Confederation, the States retained full and complete jurisdiction over lands and persons within their borders. The Congress under the Articles was merely a body which represented and acted as agents of the separate States for external affairs, and had no jurisdiction within the States.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still haven't convinced me that establishing a new government doesn't automatically, "close the position" on the previous government.
> 
> Articles 6 and 7 of our federal Constitution are all that is needed to transition to a new government:
> 
> Here is an example from just Article 6:
> 
> _All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation._
> _
> 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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
> 
> The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States._
Click to expand...




danielpalos said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ratifying our federal Constitution automatically "closed that position" on the Articles of Confederation.
> 
> 
> 
> Not hardly, as I have shewn, such was an illegal and unlawful act in violation of the Constitution.
> Also the Articles were a federal Constitution, under a wholly federal system. The 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution instituted only a partially federal system cobbled together with a partially National .system which now as a result of Lincoln's rebellion is a wholly national system.
> Interestingly the U.S. CONstitution was established in violation of law our Southern States secession's were not, hence we have a legal right to restore our Confederacy and use our Constitution as a legal means to amend our way back to the legal U.S. Constitution which are the Articles of Confederation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Article 6 claims otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything that was done since the illegal act in violation of Article XIII is the result of the poison fruit of that illegal act.
> As for Article VI of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution...
> It does not apply to secession as there was no law, or Amendment making secession an illegal act hence no lawful authority within that CONstitution. Further......
> Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17 of the U.S. Constitution, which read as follows:
> 
> *“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.”
> Here we see that any jurisdiction of the States as a collective in government formation has* *NO JURISDICTION OUTSIDE OF THE TEN MILES SQUARE THAT IS THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND IS NON-EXISTENT EXCEPT WITHIN A U.S. FORT, AN ARSENAL, A U.S. GOVERNMENT BUILDING, MAGAZINE, OR DOCK YARD, THUS ANY JURISDICTION BEYOND THAT IS THAT OF EACH STATE RESPECTIVELY/INDIVIDUALLY*.
> 
> *The reason for the inclusion of this clause in the Constitution was and is obvious. Under the Articles of Confederation, the States retained full and complete jurisdiction over lands and persons within their borders. The Congress under the Articles was merely a body which represented and acted as agents of the separate States for external affairs, and had no jurisdiction within the States.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still haven't convinced me that establishing a new government doesn't automatically, "close the position" on the previous government.
> 
> Articles 6 and 7 of our federal Constitution are all that is needed to transition to a new government:
> 
> Here is an example from just Article 6:
> 
> _All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation._
> _
> 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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
> 
> The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States._
Click to expand...

You just said it....
"You still haven't convinced me *that establishing a new government doesn't automatically, "close the position" on the previous government."*
So, you admit that our old government (The Articles of Confederation) were replaced by a new Government?
I have shown you that our 1781 Constitution required every State legislature to confirm any alteration of any part of the Articles, yet the State legislatures did not confirm any of the changes. Clearly the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution was the result of rebellion to the lawful authority of Article XIII.
One cannot consider something legal that is derived from an illegal act.
Anything you quote that was derived from the poison fruit of that first illegal and unlawful act is null and void.
The only avenue remaining open to you is to reject the law in favor of the illegal and unlawful.
Under our _*De jure *_Constitution which are the Articles of Confederation, there was no "House of Representatives", There were no districts, there was no national component, there only existed a wholly federal system with State government representatives. All that existed within the collective body was...."CONGRESS IN SESSION". There was no District of Columbia, the Congress met in session in differing locations.
Any authority was derived from the people through their State government. Under the illegal 1787/1789 Constitution a two party duopoly was put in place of the State governments as a means to represent the people, hence without any participation between the State governments in legislation or the central body, then clearly thay perpetual union was destroyed by the 1787/1789 CONstitution.
Convincing you to accept the truth is not paramount, it is the many who we wish to reach with the truth and the purpose of our effort of restoration.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You set a standard that is not required.
> 
> The questions have been fully answered to the satisfaction of a reasonable standard.
> 
> Time for the "CSA" to find a new advocate.
> 
> You don't have what it takes.
> 
> 
> 
> JAKE,
> Read the Articles.
> Article XIII States that any alteration in the articles require confirmation by each States legislature, hence a vote was required by each States legislature on alteration of each article that was altered. If such votes were taken, please cite them.
> Seems your USA needs a new spokesman because you lack the knowledge to rise up to the job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are talking about the Constittuion, and you are talking about the Articles.  Hint: they are not the same.  Truth: the states as our Agents of We the People ratified the Constitution.  As long as you are the advocate of the 'CSA', America is safe.
Click to expand...

JAKE,
If the State legislatures did ratify YOUR CONstitution, then please cite the votes within those State legislatures. 
You cannot do this even for one State, as such never occurred, hence an illegal act was perpetrated.
And I want to offer you this advice.,,,,
Using little smiley faces and such only make any point you ever make even if relevant seem childish and unprofessional.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James is mistaking the process of amending the Articles with the acceptance of the Congress in accepting the proposed document and forwarding it to the several states for ratification.  The document was accepted and forwarded.  The process was legal, and James continues to be wrong.

And the various states as agents of We the People did ratify the Constitution.  To suggest they did not when James knows they did is lying.


----------



## James Everett

danielpalos said:


> No one has explained why ratification of our new Constitution didn't automatically "close the position" on the previous constitution as stated in Article 7 and Article 6.


As I have stated, the act in which the 1787/1788 CONstitution was ratified was in violation of law, hence illegal. Any act thereafter as a result of the first illegal act is poisoned fruit, thus illegal/spoiled as well.


----------



## danielpalos

Ratification accomplished the "opening of a new position" on Government that automatically "closed the position" on the previous Government.  

It must be that simple simply Because, two Governments cannot occupy the Same place at the same time.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> James is mistaking the process of amending the Articles with the acceptance of the Congress in accepting the proposed document and forwarding it to the several states for ratification.  The document was accepted and forwarded.  The process was legal, and James continues to be wrong.


JAKE, 
You must provide each States legislatures vote in altering even one article, yet such votes were never taken, as the process was ratified not by the Legislatures of every State, but was ratified by the people through delegates elected by the people, not by each States legislature. A. Clear violation of the law.


----------



## James Everett

danielpalos said:


> Ratification accomplished the "opening of a new position" on Government that automatically "closed the position" on the previous Government.
> 
> It must be that simple simply Because, two Governments cannot occupy the Same place at the same time.


This is why we exist under occupation because two cannot occupy the same space. The 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution is illegally occupying the place of the 1781 legal Constitution.


----------



## James Everett

there4eyeM said:


> What is meant by "your constitution"?


Because, as our Declaration of Independence states.,...
Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. 
I do not voluntarily grant my consent to a government and constitution that were put in place via an illegal act. Others do grant voluntary consent to it and the illegal and unlawful act I which it was put in place.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James Everett said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> James is mistaking the process of amending the Articles with the acceptance of the Congress in accepting the proposed document and forwarding it to the several states for ratification.  The document was accepted and forwarded.  The process was legal, and James continues to be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> JAKE,
> You must provide each States legislatures vote in altering even one article, yet such votes were never taken, as the process was ratified not by the Legislatures of every State, but was ratified by the people through delegates elected by the people, not by each States legislature. A. Clear violation of the law.
Click to expand...

James,
You must provide the proof because the affirmation is yours. 

In fact, the Congress, not having to alter by amendment the government, accepted the proposed Constitution and passed it on to the states.

Do you understand the differences of amendment and legislation of ACC?

You seem very weak on this difference.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James Everett said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ratification accomplished the "opening of a new position" on Government that automatically "closed the position" on the previous Government.
> 
> It must be that simple simply Because, two Governments cannot occupy the Same place at the same time.
> 
> 
> 
> This is why we exist under occupation because two cannot occupy the same space. The 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution is illegally occupying the place of the 1781 legal Constitution.
Click to expand...

A premise without any factual proof other than your imagination.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James Everett said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is meant by "your constitution"?
> 
> 
> 
> Because, as our Declaration of Independence states.,...
> Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
> I do not voluntarily grant my consent to a government and constitution that were put in place via an illegal act. Others do grant voluntary consent to it and the illegal and unlawful act I which it was put in place.
Click to expand...

Your voluntary acceptance was granted by the states as our agents of We the People.  You may not like it, but your are morally and legally bound by the document.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> James is mistaking the process of amending the Articles with the acceptance of the Congress in accepting the proposed document and forwarding it to the several states for ratification.  The document was accepted and forwarded.  The process was legal, and James continues to be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> JAKE,
> You must provide each States legislatures vote in altering even one article, yet such votes were never taken, as the process was ratified not by the Legislatures of every State, but was ratified by the people through delegates elected by the people, not by each States legislature. A. Clear violation of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> James,
> You must provide the proof because the affirmation is yours.
> 
> In fact, the Congress, not having to alter by amendment the government, accepted the proposed Constitution and passed it on to the states.
> 
> Do you understand the differences of amendment and legislation of ACC?
> 
> You seem very weak on this difference.
Click to expand...

Again, JAKE, read article XIII of our 1781 Constitution. 
Any alteration in that Constitution required the approval of every States legislature. This act requires the States Constitutions legislative act, which in each State is by vote of that States legislative body and process of becoming law. 
Again this lawful procedure was not followed hence the act of ratification was an illegal and unlawful act.
It is not possible nor my place to produce evidence of a process that never took place, it is yours to provide evidence that it did, however such is not possible for you as such never took place.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is meant by "your constitution"?
> 
> 
> 
> Because, as our Declaration of Independence states.,...
> Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
> I do not voluntarily grant my consent to a government and constitution that were put in place via an illegal act. Others do grant voluntary consent to it and the illegal and unlawful act I which it was put in place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your voluntary acceptance was granted by the states as our agents of We the People.  You may not like it, but your are morally and legally bound by the document.
Click to expand...

jAKE, 
I apologize but I cannot continue to have a discussion with someone such as you who is so ignorant of the issues that it is too difficult to take the time to educate.
You have some emotional growing up to accomplish,and then some education is desperately needed.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> James is under the impression that his opinion is evidence.  He is suggesting that the Constitution was supposedly amending the Articles.  His suggestion is not proof.  He does not know the difference between amendment and legislation in the Articles.  He cannot demonstrate that the sending on of the proposed Constitution to the states for ratification (or not) was illegal.
> 
> His opinion that the passage of the Constitution onto the states was illegal, once again, is merely his opinion, nothing else.


Jake,please stop blathering, you don't know what you are talking about, alteration is amending, legislation is alteration. You are a blithering idiot!


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> James, the issue is yours, so nothing to apologize about.  You project on to me your lack of maturity and education.
> 
> You made a premise that you cannot provide the evidence for.  The opposition never has to prove the case for the affirmative.  Your are under the impression that your opinion is evidence. You suggest that the Constitution was supposedly amending the Articles without evidence. Your suggestion is not proof. You do not know the difference between amendment and legislation in the Articles. You cannot demonstrate that the sending on of the proposed Constitution to the states for ratification (or not) was illegal.
> 
> Your opinion that the passage of the Constitution onto the states was illegal, once again, is merely your opinion, nothing else.
> As such you and your premise fail.


Jake,
Go play with your X box.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James, the issue is yours, so nothing to apologize about. You project on to me your lack of maturity and education.

Your blathering made several premises that you cannot provide the evidence for. The opposition never has to prove the case for the affirmative. Your are under the impression that your opinion is evidence. You suggest that the Constitution was supposedly amending the Articles without evidence. Your suggestion is not proof. You do not know the difference between amendment and legislation in the Articles. You cannot demonstrate that the sending on of the proposed Constitution to the states for ratification (or not) was illegal.

Your opinion that the passage of the Constitution onto the states was illegal, once again, is merely your opinion, nothing else.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The following will guide your further education, James.

"Was the Constitution Illegally Adopted? Michael P. Farris1 * Abstract: This article analyzes the claim that the Constitution was illegally ratified in 1788. This claim is founded on the premise that the Constitutional Convention violated its mandate by adopting a wholly new document rather than simply altering the Articles of Confederation, and by allowing the proposed Constitution to be ratified without unanimous ratification by the states. The article concludes that the Constitution can truly be seen as both a series of amendments and a name change, which was subsequently unanimously accepted by the First Congress. Further, the ratification process was not illegal, as all thirteen state conventions accepted the change in ratification procedure, although only eleven state conventions approved of the document before its adoption."

_*Dr. Michael P. Farris is the founding President and current Chancellor of Patrick Henry College and Chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association. Michael lives with his wife, Vickie, in Purcellville, Virginia with their 10 children and 12 grandchildre_n. 
http://www2.gcc.edu/orgs/GCLawJournal/articles/spring 2011/Constitution Illegally Adopted.pdf


----------



## danielpalos

James Everett said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> James is mistaking the process of amending the Articles with the acceptance of the Congress in accepting the proposed document and forwarding it to the several states for ratification.  The document was accepted and forwarded.  The process was legal, and James continues to be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> JAKE,
> You must provide each States legislatures vote in altering even one article, yet such votes were never taken, as the process was ratified not by the Legislatures of every State, but was ratified by the people through delegates elected by the people, not by each States legislature. A. Clear violation of the law.
Click to expand...

Ratification accomplished that process in the analogous and (political) market friendly manner, previously described.

Our new fangled, hybrid Constitution required representatives of the People to ratify it.


----------



## there4eyeM

A great deal is beiing assumed concerning 'me'.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> The following will guide your further education, James.
> 
> "Was the Constitution Illegally Adopted? Michael P. Farris1 * Abstract: This article analyzes the claim that the Constitution was illegally ratified in 1788. This claim is founded on the premise that the Constitutional Convention violated its mandate by adopting a wholly new document rather than simply altering the Articles of Confederation, and by allowing the proposed Constitution to be ratified without unanimous ratification by the states. The article concludes that the Constitution can truly be seen as both a series of amendments and a name change, which was subsequently unanimously accepted by the First Congress. Further, the ratification process was not illegal, as all thirteen state conventions accepted the change in ratification procedure, although only eleven state conventions approved of the document before its adoption."
> 
> _*Dr. Michael P. Farris is the founding President and current Chancellor of Patrick Henry College and Chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association. Michael lives with his wife, Vickie, in Purcellville, Virginia with their 10 children and 12 grandchildre_n.
> http://www2.gcc.edu/orgs/GCLawJournal/articles/spring 2011/Constitution Illegally Adopted.pdf


As, stated, only eleven State legislatures ratified the alterations before it was illegally adopted. Also, the Alteration could not have occurred by State conventions, as article thirteen is specific in its requirements for alteration. 
Mr. Farris assertion has long since been debunked. 
The truth stands. 
Ratification was not done legally.


----------



## James Everett

danielpalos said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> James is mistaking the process of amending the Articles with the acceptance of the Congress in accepting the proposed document and forwarding it to the several states for ratification.  The document was accepted and forwarded.  The process was legal, and James continues to be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> JAKE,
> You must provide each States legislatures vote in altering even one article, yet such votes were never taken, as the process was ratified not by the Legislatures of every State, but was ratified by the people through delegates elected by the people, not by each States legislature. A. Clear violation of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ratification accomplished that process in the analogous and (political) market friendly manner, previously described.
> 
> Our new fangled, hybrid Constitution required representatives of the People to ratify it.
Click to expand...

Again, Article XIII states otherwise, and it was the law. Anything outside that is unlawful and illegal.


----------



## danielpalos

James Everett said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> James is mistaking the process of amending the Articles with the acceptance of the Congress in accepting the proposed document and forwarding it to the several states for ratification.  The document was accepted and forwarded.  The process was legal, and James continues to be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> JAKE,
> You must provide each States legislatures vote in altering even one article, yet such votes were never taken, as the process was ratified not by the Legislatures of every State, but was ratified by the people through delegates elected by the people, not by each States legislature. A. Clear violation of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ratification accomplished that process in the analogous and (political) market friendly manner, previously described.
> 
> Our new fangled, hybrid Constitution required representatives of the People to ratify it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, Article XIII states otherwise, and it was the law. Anything outside that is unlawful and illegal.
Click to expand...

There is no Article XIII in our federal Constitution unless you count the Articles of Amendment.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James can argue against Dr. Farris all he wants, and he will fail every time as he does above.


----------



## James Everett

danielpalos said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> James is mistaking the process of amending the Articles with the acceptance of the Congress in accepting the proposed document and forwarding it to the several states for ratification.  The document was accepted and forwarded.  The process was legal, and James continues to be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> JAKE,
> You must provide each States legislatures vote in altering even one article, yet such votes were never taken, as the process was ratified not by the Legislatures of every State, but was ratified by the people through delegates elected by the people, not by each States legislature. A. Clear violation of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ratification accomplished that process in the analogous and (political) market friendly manner, previously described.
> 
> Our new fangled, hybrid Constitution required representatives of the People to ratify it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, Article XIII states otherwise, and it was the law. Anything outside that is unlawful and illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no Article XIII in our federal Constitution unless you count the Articles of Amendment.
Click to expand...

Our "federal constitution" is the Articles of Confederation, it is the  only one which operates under a federal system.
The illegal 1787/1789 CONstitution established a partially national system combined with a partially federal system, (this is explained by James Madison in the CONstitutional debates #39) all one need do is read therein how that system was to function. However the federal portion was removed, leaving only a wholly national system in operation today, therefore you have no "federal constitution) or a "federal government" in existence today. 
The question is are you willing to continue accepting a fiction, or are you going to accept the truth.
What you do with the facts and truth are up to you.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> James can argue against Dr. Farris all he wants, and he will fail every time as he does above.


JAKE,
I have proven Mr. Farris to be incorrect, by simply citing the law that existed under article XIII of the 1781 constitution which was in force in 1787 and 1789.
The lawful authority of the 1781 constitution was violated, which is a rebellious act.
JAKE, 
You will never admit the truth because it destroys your foolish position which is based in ignorance.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Dr. Farris, to the contrary, carefully answered all of the arguments such as you pose.

You are wrong.  Your fantasies are just that, fantasies.

You are truly ignorant.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The Constitutional Convention was not illegal: James can't prove that assertion.

The Articles of Confederation Congress accepted the document and passed it on to the states: James can't prove that such was illegal.

He needs to present irrefutable evidence, and somehow he believes his assertions are evidence. Amazing.

James, your assertions are not evidence without proof. Your questions are not evidence at all, just questions.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> The Constitutional Convention was not illegal: James can't prove that assertion.
> 
> The Articles of Confederation Congress accepted the document and passed it on to the states: James can't prove that such was illegal.
> 
> He needs to present irrefutable evidence, and somehow he believes his assertions are evidence.  Amazing.
> 
> James, your assertions are not evidence without proof.  Your questions are not evidence at all, just questions.


OK, JAKE,
Read James Madison's letter to Mr. Everett, wherein he states that the 1787/1789 U.S CONstitution was NOT ratified by the State legislatures, but rather by the people. 
Was James Madison. Liar, or are you a fool?
Which is it JAKE?


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> Dr. Farris, to the contrary, carefully answered all of the arguments such as you pose.
> 
> You are wrong.  Your fantasies are just that, fantasies.
> 
> You are truly ignorant.


Farris, admitted that the State legislatures did not ratify, and then claimed it was a legal act, not to mention he is in conflict with the law, under Article XIII. Sorry JAKE, but you are wrong again.


----------



## there4eyeM

JakeStarkey said:


> The Constitutional Convention was not illegal: James can't prove that assertion.
> 
> The Articles of Confederation Congress accepted the document and passed it on to the states: James can't prove that such was illegal.
> 
> He needs to present irrefutable evidence, and somehow he believes his assertions are evidence. Amazing.
> 
> James, your assertions are not evidence without proof. Your questions are not evidence at all, just questions.



I can't figure out if I missed something. What happened to 'perpetual'.


----------



## James Everett

there4eyeM said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitutional Convention was not illegal: James can't prove that assertion.
> 
> The Articles of Confederation Congress accepted the document and passed it on to the states: James can't prove that such was illegal.
> 
> He needs to present irrefutable evidence, and somehow he believes his assertions are evidence. Amazing.
> 
> James, your assertions are not evidence without proof. Your questions are not evidence at all, just questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't figure out if I missed something. What happened to 'perpetual'.
Click to expand...

Here is the question...
If the union was a union of States, and a State is defined as ""
" A mode of government"
And a constitution establishing a republican form of government is the prerequisite for becoming a member State in the union, then clearly, there must be a union of States for there to be a United States.
Now if the State governments, and remember a State is ....
"a mode of government"
If they have no participation in the central body that the established to create the union, if they have no representation in that central body established between them, if they have no say in legislation: then how can that union of States be perpetual if the State governments are no longer party to the union that they established between themselves?
It would appear that that perpetual union between themselves no longer exists.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James Everett said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitutional Convention was not illegal: James can't prove that assertion.
> 
> The Articles of Confederation Congress accepted the document and passed it on to the states: James can't prove that such was illegal.
> 
> He needs to present irrefutable evidence, and somehow he believes his assertions are evidence.  Amazing.
> 
> James, your assertions are not evidence without proof.  Your questions are not evidence at all, just questions.
> 
> 
> 
> OK, JAKE,
> Read James Madison's letter to Mr. Everett, wherein he states that the 1787/1789 U.S CONstitution was NOT ratified by the State legislatures, but rather by the people.  Was James Madison. Liar, or are you a fool?
> Which is it JAKE?
Click to expand...

JAMES is a FOOL if he thinks that argument means anything.  YOU are not the AUTHORITY.  Madison 's statement is just fine, and your interp is worthless.

Interesting.  Using CAPS does not affect the meaning.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James Everett said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Farris, to the contrary, carefully answered all of the arguments such as you pose.
> 
> You are wrong.  Your fantasies are just that, fantasies.
> 
> You are truly ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> Farris, admitted that the State legislatures did not ratify, and then claimed it was a legal act, not to mention he is in conflict with the law, under Article XIII. Sorry JAKE, but you are wrong again.
Click to expand...

When the ACC sent the proposed document to the states, the action met all necessary requirements of that Congress.  Art XIII was not involved and did not not need to be met.  All legislation required 9 votes, and the resolution got those votes.  You are wrong, Farris is wrong.


----------



## there4eyeM

James Everett said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitutional Convention was not illegal: James can't prove that assertion.
> 
> The Articles of Confederation Congress accepted the document and passed it on to the states: James can't prove that such was illegal.
> 
> He needs to present irrefutable evidence, and somehow he believes his assertions are evidence. Amazing.
> 
> James, your assertions are not evidence without proof. Your questions are not evidence at all, just questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't figure out if I missed something. What happened to 'perpetual'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is the question...
> If the union was a union of States, and a State is defined as ""
> " A mode of government"
> And a constitution establishing a republican form of government is the prerequisite for becoming a member State in the union, then clearly, there must be a union of States for there to be a United States.
> Now if the State governments, and remember a State is ....
> "a mode of government"
> If they have no participation in the central body that the established to create the union, if they have no representation in that central body established between them, if they have no say in legislation: then how can that union of States be perpetual if the State governments are no longer party to the union that they established between themselves?
> It would appear that that perpetual union between themselves no longer exists.
Click to expand...


By that serpentine 'logic' (which is difficult to wade through), the union would never have existed at all. Thus, it would never have born the name 'perpetual'.
As for the definition of 'state', it is more an entity that is governed than a form/mode of governing. The word is a noun, not a verb, as used in this political context.
A state does not need to be sovereign. If it is not, then its participation in being included in a union is moot, or at least very vague. The fact that the people who constitute the state accept and embrace the union makes it de facto reality.
So, if ever we accept there was a Union under the Articles, then it was intended to be Perpetual as named, and that intention continued into the spirit of the 1789 Constitution.


----------



## danielpalos

James Everett said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> James is mistaking the process of amending the Articles with the acceptance of the Congress in accepting the proposed document and forwarding it to the several states for ratification.  The document was accepted and forwarded.  The process was legal, and James continues to be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> JAKE,
> You must provide each States legislatures vote in altering even one article, yet such votes were never taken, as the process was ratified not by the Legislatures of every State, but was ratified by the people through delegates elected by the people, not by each States legislature. A. Clear violation of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ratification accomplished that process in the analogous and (political) market friendly manner, previously described.
> 
> Our new fangled, hybrid Constitution required representatives of the People to ratify it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, Article XIII states otherwise, and it was the law. Anything outside that is unlawful and illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no Article XIII in our federal Constitution unless you count the Articles of Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our "federal constitution" is the Articles of Confederation, it is the  only one which operates under a federal system.
> The illegal 1787/1789 CONstitution established a partially national system combined with a partially federal system, (this is explained by James Madison in the CONstitutional debates #39) all one need do is read therein how that system was to function. However the federal portion was removed, leaving only a wholly national system in operation today, therefore you have no "federal constitution) or a "federal government" in existence today.
> The question is are you willing to continue accepting a fiction, or are you going to accept the truth.
> What you do with the facts and truth are up to you.
Click to expand...

Are you claiming we merely need to repeal the 17th Amendment to better re-establish our federal and republican form of Government?


----------



## danielpalos

there4eyeM said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitutional Convention was not illegal: James can't prove that assertion.
> 
> The Articles of Confederation Congress accepted the document and passed it on to the states: James can't prove that such was illegal.
> 
> He needs to present irrefutable evidence, and somehow he believes his assertions are evidence. Amazing.
> 
> James, your assertions are not evidence without proof. Your questions are not evidence at all, just questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't figure out if I missed something. What happened to 'perpetual'.
Click to expand...

that position was closed to the Union under the Articles and opened to the Union under our federal Constitution.


----------



## James Everett

danielpalos said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> JAKE,
> You must provide each States legislatures vote in altering even one article, yet such votes were never taken, as the process was ratified not by the Legislatures of every State, but was ratified by the people through delegates elected by the people, not by each States legislature. A. Clear violation of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> Ratification accomplished that process in the analogous and (political) market friendly manner, previously described.
> 
> Our new fangled, hybrid Constitution required representatives of the People to ratify it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, Article XIII states otherwise, and it was the law. Anything outside that is unlawful and illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no Article XIII in our federal Constitution unless you count the Articles of Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our "federal constitution" is the Articles of Confederation, it is the  only one which operates under a federal system.
> The illegal 1787/1789 CONstitution established a partially national system combined with a partially federal system, (this is explained by James Madison in the CONstitutional debates #39) all one need do is read therein how that system was to function. However the federal portion was removed, leaving only a wholly national system in operation today, therefore you have no "federal constitution) or a "federal government" in existence today.
> The question is are you willing to continue accepting a fiction, or are you going to accept the truth.
> What you do with the facts and truth are up to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you claiming we merely need to repeal the 17th Amendment to better re-establish our federal and republican form of Government?
Click to expand...

When I have more time late tonight I will address there4eyem
As for repealing the 27th amendment, that would be a great Start and would restore the federal portion. However with the parties having taken over the political process, they will never allow such to occur. This is the reason for the restoration effort, because change cannot occur through the stranglehold that the two party duopoly holds over the political process. Another political venue must be established outside of their process. This is all explained in the Tennessee plan at CSAgov.org


----------



## JakeStarkey

from the home page

THE INTERIM GOVERNMENT FOR THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA IS AN ASSEMBLAGE OF AMERICANS SEEKING REDRESS 

Welcome to the official website of the Interim Government for the Confederate States of America.
The Confederates States of America was founded in 1861 and currently exist under the occupation of the national government of the United States of America. Our C.S.A. Constitution currently exists in a state of forced exile awaiting freedom loving Americans to rise and take up the banner of Truth and Justice and regain our States Sovereignty, and the founders system of governance.  Progress is being made and the efforts to restore our beloved Confederacy continue to grow. With perseverance and dedication, the men and women of the Confederacy will have their Liberty. So help us God


----------



## danielpalos

Ratification of our federal Constitution ended the previous government through that vote of no confidence.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitutional Convention was not illegal: James can't prove that assertion.
> 
> The Articles of Confederation Congress accepted the document and passed it on to the states: James can't prove that such was illegal.
> 
> He needs to present irrefutable evidence, and somehow he believes his assertions are evidence.  Amazing.
> 
> James, your assertions are not evidence without proof.  Your questions are not evidence at all, just questions.
> 
> 
> 
> OK, JAKE,
> Read James Madison's letter to Mr. Everett, wherein he states that the 1787/1789 U.S CONstitution was NOT ratified by the State legislatures, but rather by the people.  Was James Madison. Liar, or are you a fool?
> Which is it JAKE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> JAMES is a FOOL if he thinks that argument means anything.  YOU are not the AUTHORITY.  Madison 's statement is just fine, and your interp is worthless.
> 
> Interesting.  Using CAPS does not affect the meaning.
Click to expand...

JAKE,
Here is what Article XIII of the 1781 Constitution states, which was the law at the time of the debates and illegal ratification of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution......
*"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."*
Here is what James Madison wrote in his letter to Mr. Everett......

Mr. Everett.
August 1830…..
*
“It was formed, not by the governments of the component states, as the federal government for which it was substituted was formed. Nor was it formed by a majority of the people of the United States, as a single community, in the manner of a consolidated government. It was formed by the states, that is, by the people in each of the states, acting in their highest sovereign capacity."

Again JAKE,
"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."

As You should be able to understand.....
It was an alteration that was CONFIRMED by the legislatures of EVERY STATE, it was NOT as Madison stated.....
“It was formed, not by the governments of the component states, as the federal government for which it was substituted was formed"
Now let us view what Mr. Farris stated.....
"Further, the ratification process was not illegal, as all thirteen state conventions accepted the change in ratification procedure, although only eleven state conventions approved of the document before its adoption."
Now, the State conventions of which Mr. Farris refers were Conventions held by elected delegates, THESE WERE NOT THE STATE LEGISLATURES AS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE XIII.
JAKE, this is not rocket science.*


----------



## James Everett

danielpalos said:


> Ratification of our federal Constitution ended the previous government through that vote of no confidence.


As stated, the ratification process violated the LAW.


----------



## James Everett

there4eyeM said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitutional Convention was not illegal: James can't prove that assertion.
> 
> The Articles of Confederation Congress accepted the document and passed it on to the states: James can't prove that such was illegal.
> 
> He needs to present irrefutable evidence, and somehow he believes his assertions are evidence. Amazing.
> 
> James, your assertions are not evidence without proof. Your questions are not evidence at all, just questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't figure out if I missed something. What happened to 'perpetual'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is the question...
> If the union was a union of States, and a State is defined as ""
> " A mode of government"
> And a constitution establishing a republican form of government is the prerequisite for becoming a member State in the union, then clearly, there must be a union of States for there to be a United States.
> Now if the State governments, and remember a State is ....
> "a mode of government"
> If they have no participation in the central body that the established to create the union, if they have no representation in that central body established between them, if they have no say in legislation: then how can that union of States be perpetual if the State governments are no longer party to the union that they established between themselves?
> It would appear that that perpetual union between themselves no longer exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By that serpentine 'logic' (which is difficult to wade through), the union would never have existed at all. Thus, it would never have born the name 'perpetual'.
> As for the definition of 'state', it is more an entity that is governed than a form/mode of governing. The word is a noun, not a verb, as used in this political context.
> A state does not need to be sovereign. If it is not, then its participation in being included in a union is moot, or at least very vague. The fact that the people who constitute the state accept and embrace the union makes it de facto reality.
> So, if ever we accept there was a Union under the Articles, then it was intended to be Perpetual as named, and that intention continued into the spirit of the 1789 Constitution.
Click to expand...

Lets begin here......
You stated.....
*"So, if ever we accept there was a Union under the Articles, then it was intended to be Perpetual as named, and that intention continued into the spirit of the 1789 Constitution."

Only thirteen of the States were party to the Articles of Confederation, the other States that became part of the union under the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution were not party to the Articles, hence any reference to perpetuity would be required in the 1787/1789 CONstitution to be binding on States that were never party to the first agreement.*
You stated.....
*By that serpentine 'logic' (which is difficult to wade through), the union would never have existed at all. Thus, it would never have born the name 'perpetual'.

Yes the union did exist, as it was a union of States, (and again a State is a mode of government) by definition. Hence the union under the Articles was a union of States...(modes of governments) united together in a Confederacy.
Article I of The Articles of Confederation states.....
"The Stile of this Confederacy, Shall be the United States of America." 
The State governments participated via a congress made up of appointees by each States legislatures  appointed to represent their States government in the union of Congress. 
Hence the continual reference to...."IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED"......*
Such as.....
*II.*
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, *in Congress assembled*.

*VI.*
No State, without the consent of the United States *in Congress assembled*, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference, agreement, alliance or treaty with any King, Prince or State; nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States, or any of them, accept any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any King, Prince or foreign State; nor shall the United States *in Congress assembled*, or any of them, grant any title of nobility.
*VIII.*
All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States *in Congress assembled*, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several States in proportion to the value of all land within each State, granted or surveyed for any person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated according to such mode as the United States *in Congress assembled*, shall from time to time direct and appoint.
*IX.*
The United States *in Congress assembled*, shall have the sole and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war, except in the cases mentioned in the sixth article.
And on and on.......

Next you state....
*"A state does not need to be sovereign. If it is not, then its participation in being included in a union is moot, or at least very vague."*
Here we seek the explanation of former President 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. 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.
The Government of the United States is one of delegated and limited powers."
*
Alexander Hamilton Stated in "The federalist #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."
So we see that a State may VOLUNTARILY place a portion of its sovereign powers on loan to a central body in the form of a treaty/Charter/Compact/Constitution, and still remain a sovereign, a State, yet without the ability to withdraw from a union, it cannot be said to retain sovereignty or its status as a sovereign State. *
Last you state....
*"The fact that the people who constitute the state accept and embrace the union makes it de facto reality."*
_The people do not constitute a State.
People exist in a territory, but without a mode of government it remains just that, A territory.
The United States has had many territories, and the usual method by which that status changed was that once a territory reached a number of inhabitants, established a constitution forming a republican form of government and established borders, it could then petition to become a member State in the union.
It had first to establish itself as a State via  a constitution forming a government._
*U.S. Supreme Court
POLLARD v. HAGAN, 44 U.S. 212 (1845)
"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. The United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a state or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted."

United States v. Bevans, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 336 (1818), which involved a federal prosecution for a murder committed on board the Warship, Independence, anchored in the harbor of Boston, Massachusetts.
The defense complained that only the state had jurisdiction to prosecute and argued that the federal Circuit Courts had no jurisdiction of this crime supposedly committed within the federal government's admiralty jurisdiction. In argument before the Supreme Court, counsel for the United States admitted as follows:
"The exclusive jurisdiction which the United States have in forts and dock-yards ceded to them, is derived from the express assent of the states by whom the cessions are made. It could be derived in no other manner; because without it, the authority of the state would be supreme and exclusive therein," 3 Wheat., at 350, 351.
In holding that the State of Massachusetts had jurisdiction over the crime, the Court held:
"What, then, is the extent of jurisdiction which a state possesses?
"We answer, without hesitation, the jurisdiction of a state is co-extensive with its territory; co-extensive with its legislative power," 3 Wheat., at 386, 387.
So we see here that the U.S. held no jurisdiction in a murder even on a U.S. war ship as it was anchored within the jurisdictional waters of the State of Massachusetts.
In New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 102 (1837), the question before the Court involved the attempt by the City of New York to assess penalties against the master of a ship for his failure to make a report as to the persons his ship brought to New York. As against the master's contention that the act was unconstitutional and that New York had no jurisdiction in the matter, the Court held:

"If we look at the place of its operation, we find it to be within the territory, and, therefore, within the jurisdiction of New York. If we look at the person on whom it operates, he is found within the same territory and jurisdiction," 36 U.S., at 133.

"They are these: that a State has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things within its territorial limits, as any foreign nation, where that jurisdiction is not surrendered or restrained by the Constitution of the United States. That, by virtue of this, it is not only the right, but the bounden and solemn duty of a State, to advance the safety, happiness and prosperity of its people, and to provide for its general welfare, by any and every act of legislation which it may deem to be conducive to these ends; where the power over the particular subject, or the manner of its exercise is not surrendered or restrained, in the manner just stated. That all those powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what may, perhaps, more properly be called internal police, are not thus surrendered or restrained; and that, consequently, in relation to these, the authority of a State is complete, unqualified and exclusive," 36 U.S., at 139.






*


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> from the home page
> 
> THE INTERIM GOVERNMENT FOR THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA IS AN ASSEMBLAGE OF AMERICANS SEEKING REDRESS
> 
> Welcome to the official website of the Interim Government for the Confederate States of America.
> The Confederates States of America was founded in 1861 and currently exist under the occupation of the national government of the United States of America. Our C.S.A. Constitution currently exists in a state of forced exile awaiting freedom loving Americans to rise and take up the banner of Truth and Justice and regain our States Sovereignty, and the founders system of governance.  Progress is being made and the efforts to restore our beloved Confederacy continue to grow. With perseverance and dedication, the men and women of the Confederacy will have their Liberty. So help us God


Thanks for the promo JAKE!


----------



## there4eyeM

Hmmm...didn't the participants in the war for secession take an oath of some kind after the fighting stopped? Didn't the people in those areas participate in the success of the country to which they were attached? How can they be part and apart at the same time?
This is a bit like the abortion issue; if people really believed abortion were murder, they would occupy the clinics and defend what they identify as humans physically. As they do not, we know they are merely using rhetoric.
If there is some body of individuals that regards itself as separate from the current nation referred to as the United States, they would stop participating, including benefiting. They would not pay taxes, not serve in the military, not receive aid.
Is that happening anywhere?


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitutional Convention was not illegal: James can't prove that assertion.
> 
> The Articles of Confederation Congress accepted the document and passed it on to the states: James can't prove that such was illegal.
> 
> He needs to present irrefutable evidence, and somehow he believes his assertions are evidence.  Amazing.
> 
> James, your assertions are not evidence without proof.  Your questions are not evidence at all, just questions.
> 
> 
> 
> OK, JAKE,
> Read James Madison's letter to Mr. Everett, wherein he states that the 1787/1789 U.S CONstitution was NOT ratified by the State legislatures, but rather by the people.  Was James Madison. Liar, or are you a fool?
> Which is it JAKE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> JAMES is a FOOL if he thinks that argument means anything.  YOU are not the AUTHORITY.  Madison 's statement is just fine, and your interp is worthless.
> 
> Interesting.  Using CAPS does not affect the meaning.
Click to expand...

JAKE,
Here is what Article XIII of the 1781 Constitution states, which was the law at the time of the debates and illegal ratification of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution......
*"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."*
Here is what James Madison wrote in his letter to Mr. Everett......

Mr. Everett.
August 1830…..
*
“It was formed, not by the governments of the component states, as the federal government for which it was substituted was formed. Nor was it formed by a majority of the people of the United States, as a single community, in the manner of a consolidated government. It was formed by the states, that is, by the people in each of the states, acting in their highest sovereign capacity."

Again JAKE,
"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."

As You should be able to understand.....
It was an alteration that was CONFIRMED by the legislatures of EVERY STATE, it was NOT as Madison stated.....
“It was formed, not by the governments of the component states, as the federal government for which it was substituted was formed"*


----------



## JakeStarkey

You have already been told and demonstrated that Article XIII requirement was unnecessary.

The ACC obviously agreed.

You yelling "no, that's not so," is immaterial. Your denial means nothing.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> The Constitution accepted by the ACC and forwarded to the states for ratification.  The Constitution was a new government, not an amendment to the old one.  Neither required comportment with Article XIII.  Yes, Mr. Madison was right that We the People using the states formed the new government. “It was formed by the states, that is, by the people in each of the states, acting in their highest sovereign capacity."
> 
> Your argument that somehow the above was not legal makes no sense at all.  This is not rocket sense at all.
> 
> James' obsession has neither meaning in law nor practicable force in our culture.
> 
> He hurts no one at all.  If he is happy, then quite good on him.


So, The CONstitution was a new government? Then the old one proclaiming the union to be perpetual was done away with and the new having not enumerated that this new CONstitution and government were to be perpetual then secession was legal. Thank You JAKE.
AGAIN JAKE......
* "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."
Such was THE LAW.
AGAIN, JAKE......
“It was formed, not by the governments of the component states, as the federal government for which it was substituted was formed.
The people do not compose a State legislature. Are you a State legislator? 
The LAW stated that any alteration must be "CONFIRMED BY EVERY STATE LEGISLATURE", such was NOT done.
*


JakeStarkey said:


> You have already been told and demonstrated that Article XIII requirement was unnecessary.
> 
> The ACC obviously agreed.
> 
> You yelling "no, that's not so," is immaterial. Your denial means nothing.


----------



## James Everett

James Everett said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution accepted by the ACC and forwarded to the states for ratification.  The Constitution was a new government, not an amendment to the old one.  Neither required comportment with Article XIII.  Yes, Mr. Madison was right that We the People using the states formed the new government. “It was formed by the states, that is, by the people in each of the states, acting in their highest sovereign capacity."
> 
> Your argument that somehow the above was not legal makes no sense at all.  This is not rocket sense at all.
> 
> James' obsession has neither meaning in law nor practicable force in our culture.
> 
> He hurts no one at all.  If he is happy, then quite good on him.
> 
> 
> 
> So, The CONstitution was a new government? Then the old one proclaiming the union to be perpetual was done away with and the new having not enumerated that this new CONstitution and government were to be perpetual then secession was legal. Thank You JAKE.
> AGAIN JAKE......
> * "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."
> Such was THE LAW.
> AGAIN, JAKE......
> “It was formed, not by the governments of the component states, as the federal government for which it was substituted was formed.
> The people do not compose a State legislature. Are you a State legislator?
> The LAW stated that any alteration must be "CONFIRMED BY EVERY STATE LEGISLATURE", such was NOT done.
> *
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have already been told and demonstrated that Article XIII requirement was unnecessary.
> 
> The ACC obviously agreed.
> 
> You yelling "no, that's not so," is immaterial. Your denial means nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

JAKE, YOU HAVE ALREADY BEEN TOLD.....
*"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."
Such was THE LAW.
AGAIN, JAKE......
“It was formed, not by the governments of the component states, as the federal government for which it was substituted was formed.
The people do not compose a State legislature. Are you a State legislator? 
The LAW stated that any alteration must be "CONFIRMED BY EVERY STATE LEGISLATURE", such was NOT done.*


----------



## JakeStarkey

James, there is no 'so'.  You are harmless, you are obssessed with your subject.  It keeps you off the streets and out of the bars.  Good on you.


----------



## James Everett

there4eyeM said:


> Hmmm...didn't the participants in the war for secession take an oath of some kind after the fighting stopped? Didn't the people in those areas participate in the success of the country to which they were attached? How can they be part and apart at the same time?
> This is a bit like the abortion issue; if people really believed abortion were murder, they would occupy the clinics and defend what they identify as humans physically. As they do not, we know they are merely using rhetoric.
> If there is some body of individuals that regards itself as separate from the current nation referred to as the United States, they would stop participating, including benefiting. They would not pay taxes, not serve in the military, not receive aid.
> Is that happening anywhere?


You ask......
Hmmm...didn't the participants in the war for secession take an oath of some kind after the fighting stopped? Didn't the people in those areas participate in the success of the country to which they were attached? How can they be part and apart at the same time?
This is a bit like the abortion issue; if people really believed abortion were murder, they would occupy the clinics and defend what they identify as humans physically. As they do not, we know they are merely using rhetoric.
If there is some body of individuals that regards itself as separate from the current nation referred to as the United States, they would stop participating, including benefiting. They would not pay taxes, not serve in the military, not receive aid.
*Is that happening anywhere?
YES....
It is called individual secession, as in.....
http://csa.systekproof.com/wp-conte...essee-Republic-Plan-Under-the-Restoration.pdf*
*I do not participate in YOUR two party (Duopoly) political process.
I have nor never would serve in YOUR governments military supporting its hegemony.
I accept, nor request benifits from YOUR government.
Yes I do pay tribute, (Taxes) it is through......
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]
On February 22 Grant declared martial law.
On March 12, 1862, Andrew Johnson, whom President Lincoln had appointed Military Governor of Tennessee.
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.
A convention of Unionist met in Nashville January 9, 1865, drafted amendments to the state constitution, nominated candidates for governor and the legislature.
No Confederates or Confederate sympathizers, were allowed to vote.
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.*

It is a little difficult for your position here to be taken seriously .....
*"Hmmm...didn't the participants in the war for secession take an oath of some kind after the fighting stopped? "
As for today?
Have you ever heard of the Machiavellian 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...." 
This illusion has been perpetuated on our people since birth, they can hardly be blamed. Breaking this illusion is a long journey, over 150 years of undoing, by exposing the truth.
*


----------



## JakeStarkey

James, the Constitution was accepted by the ACC and forwarded to the states for ratification. The Constitution was a new government, not an amendment to the old one. Neither required comportment with Article XIII. Yes, Mr. Madison was right that We the People using the states formed the new government. “It was formed by the states, that is, by the people in each of the states, acting in their highest sovereign capacity."

So your argument that somehow the above was not legal makes no sense at all. This is not rocket science at all.

Your obsession has neither meaning in law nor practicable force in our culture.

You hurt no one at all. If you are happy, then quite good on you.


----------



## James Everett

James Everett said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution accepted by the ACC and forwarded to the states for ratification.  The Constitution was a new government, not an amendment to the old one.  Neither required comportment with Article XIII.  Yes, Mr. Madison was right that We the People using the states formed the new government. “It was formed by the states, that is, by the people in each of the states, acting in their highest sovereign capacity."
> 
> Your argument that somehow the above was not legal makes no sense at all.  This is not rocket sense at all.
> 
> James' obsession has neither meaning in law nor practicable force in our culture.
> 
> He hurts no one at all.  If he is happy, then quite good on him.
> 
> 
> 
> So, The CONstitution was a new government? Then the old one proclaiming the union to be perpetual was done away with and the new having not enumerated that this new CONstitution and government were to be perpetual then secession was legal. Thank You JAKE.
> AGAIN JAKE......
> * "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."
> Such was THE LAW.
> AGAIN, JAKE......
> “It was formed, not by the governments of the component states, as the federal government for which it was substituted was formed.
> The people do not compose a State legislature. Are you a State legislator?
> The LAW stated that any alteration must be "CONFIRMED BY EVERY STATE LEGISLATURE", such was NOT done.
> *
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have already been told and demonstrated that Article XIII requirement was unnecessary.
> 
> The ACC obviously agreed.
> 
> You yelling "no, that's not so," is immaterial. Your denial means nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




JakeStarkey said:


> James, there is no 'so'.  You are harmless, you are obssessed with your subject.  It keeps you off the streets and out of the bars.  Good on you.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yes, we know all this: "James, there is no 'so'.  You are harmless, you are obssessed with your subject.  It keeps you off the streets and out of the bars.  Good on you."


----------



## danielpalos

Dudes and Esquires,

Ratification of our federal Constitution by the, several United States under the Articles of Confederation closed that position on the United States under the Articles of Confederation in favor of our federal Union; and why Conventions by State were necessary.


----------



## James Everett

danielpalos said:


> Dudes and Esquires,
> 
> Ratification of our federal Constitution by the, several United States under the Articles of Confederation closed that position on the United States under the Articles of Confederation in favor of our federal Union; and why Conventions by State were necessary.


*According to the law, which at that time was the 1781 Constitution, Article XIII required that any alteration to be.....
Agreed to (Confirmed) by the legislatures of every State*, *(ratifying a new CONstitution was a complete alteration)
"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."*
*A Convention of elected delegates does NOT meet the requirement of the LAW.
The LAW states that any alteration must be confirmed by the legislature of every State.....
 NOT BY CONVENTION OF ELECTED DELEGATES.
Each State had a process for legislation to be passed by the legislators, that process required a vote by those State legislators, Alteration of one or all would require each State to follow its legislative process.
A Convention of elected delegates does NOT constitute confirmation by each States legislature.
If the Articles had been replaced legally, then the perpetuity would have been part of that replacement, otherwise one cannot state that only one part remained in effect while all others were nullified, when the perpetuity was not enumerated in the new CONstitution.
One cannot "have their cake and eat it to" in this circumstance. Either the Articles were replaced or they remain in effect. In legal terms the ratification was in violation of the law. One cannot state that secession was illegal when no law existed making secession illegal and then State that the perpetuity under the Articles made secession illegal and then state that the Articles were replaced by a new CONstitution. If the law concerning a perpetual union remained in effect, then how can one take that same article XIII and state that only part of that article remained in effect but the other part of that same article did not?
One can be inconsistent only if one wishes to avoid the truth in order to justify ones prefered position.
*


----------



## danielpalos

Thank you for supporting my contention why Conventions by State were necessary.


----------



## James Everett

danielpalos said:


> Thank you for supporting my contention why Conventions by State were necessary.


Your point being that an illegal act was perpetuated in the ratification of YOUR CONstitution...
Yes, on that we. Agree .


----------



## JakeStarkey

No illegal act occurred except in James' thinking, so in fact no illegal act happened.

But James is hurting no one.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> No illegal act occurred except in James' thinking, so in fact no illegal act happened.
> 
> But James is hurting no one.


Well, JAKE
There is no denying, that Article XIII was the law.
There is no denying that that law was not followed to the letter.
You may choose to ignore these facts, but then I would expect no different from you.
It is interesting that I can point to the law that was violated in the illegal ratification of YOUR CONstitution, yet you cannot cite the law that was violated by the Southern States secessions, outside of the perpetual Statement in a Constitution that you state was replaced. 
You keep repeating to yourself that I am harmless as if you are trying to convince yourself. Don't live in fear JAKE.


----------



## Liminal

DGS49 said:


> (1)  Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union?  Why or why not?  They came in voluntarily, right?
> 
> (2)  What is a "proclamation" (e.g., the "Emancipation Proclamation")?  Does it have the force of law within the United States?  Where, in Article II does the President get this power?  Why did President Lincoln not free the slaves in the Border States?  Was the emancipation legal anywhere?  Why was the thirteenth amendment necessary?
> 
> (3)  On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders?   Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)?  Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?



This guy sums it all up brilliantly, but it's only for people who have the patience to learn.

Discussion Legacies Civil War Video C-SPAN.org


----------



## danielpalos

James Everett said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for supporting my contention why Conventions by State were necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> Your point being that an illegal act was perpetuated in the ratification of YOUR CONstitution...
> Yes, on that we. Agree .
Click to expand...

Conventions by State satisfied the requirements under the Articles.


----------



## JakeStarkey

There is no denying that the members of the ACC understood their law far better than you, James and sent the legislation on with a majority vote IAW with their governing document.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> There is no denying that the members of the ACC understood their law far better than you, James and sent the legislation on with a majority vote IAW with their governing document.


JAKE ,
Even criminals understand the law, so your point doesn't mean much. 
The requirements were and remain clear.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James, the requirements were clear and they were met.

That you disagree in the face of 229 years is meaningless.


----------



## James Everett

danielpalos said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for supporting my contention why Conventions by State were necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> Your point being that an illegal act was perpetuated in the ratification of YOUR CONstitution...
> Yes, on that we. Agree .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conventions by State satisfied the requirements under the Articles.
Click to expand...

No Conventions by State did not satisfy the law.
Again lets us review the law as stated under 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."*
*A State convention wherein delegates are elected by the people, does make a State legislature.
The first order of business in adopting a new Constitution via any other method than required by the law as it was stated in article XIII would have been to amend article XIII to allow State Conventions as a method of alteration. This requirement of the law was NOT met.*


----------



## InfoQuest

DGS49 said:


> (1)  Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union?


The Supreme Court ruled on this after the Civil War. It said there was no secession because the Constitution did not define a right to secede.

Therefore citizens of Texas and other Confederate states were US citizens before, during and after the War between the States.


----------



## James Everett

Liminal said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (1)  Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union?  Why or why not?  They came in voluntarily, right?
> 
> (2)  What is a "proclamation" (e.g., the "Emancipation Proclamation")?  Does it have the force of law within the United States?  Where, in Article II does the President get this power?  Why did President Lincoln not free the slaves in the Border States?  Was the emancipation legal anywhere?  Why was the thirteenth amendment necessary?
> 
> (3)  On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders?   Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)?  Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This guy sums it all up brilliantly, but it's only for people who have the patience to learn.
> 
> Discussion Legacies Civil War Video C-SPAN.org
Click to expand...

Liminal,
Thank you for sharing.
I am about 3/4ths of the way through the presentation, but it is very late, and I am very tired after a long day, therefore I will finish it tomorrow. A few of things I would point out at this early point.....
One is that he is correct in that most peoples understanding is base and fixed, and will not listen to the more complex, (These are my words, as I am paraphrasing), I witness this in every discussion, and it sure has been a mainstay in this thread.
Another observation at this point is that the legalities of secession have not been addressed, aside from his reference to rebellion against the federal government, though he was using it as an example: I would state that there must first be a law in place for there to be a rebellion as rebellion is defined as "Insurrection against lawful authority" hence for their to be a lawful authority, there must first be a law in place.
I personally have never claimed that one of, if not the major issue for the Southern States was slavery, however, as awful as slavery was, slavery was of no consequence to the legality of secession, and yet it has always been of interest to me, that at the same time the U.S. was supposedly fighting to free the slaves, it was also exterminating the Native American Indian, and forcing survivors into internment camps called reservations.
There is no moral high ground held by either side concerning the treatment of our fellow man.
While I had ancestors who fought for our Confederacy, such is not of great interest to me aside from being in aw of what they were able to accomplish, but I do not live vicariously through them as I witnessed in the majority of our people.
My interest is only in defending the legality of secession and the fact that it was accomplished, for the purpose of restoring federalism and the founders ideal, which can only, in my view be gained by returning to what I equate to the first incorrect equation of a math problem, wherein every subsequent equation is made incorrect by the first, and the answer will never come out correct, (The answer being liberty).
The first incorrect equation was the adoption of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, and the only middle ground as the speaker was suggesting be found, is in my view a return to the Articles, which is absent of the two party duopoly that divides and conquers. In this way the union of States would be restored, federalism would be restored along with a chance at getting the end result correct, which is liberty.
Yet so many are to base to understand the complexity of our cause.


----------



## James Everett

InfoQuest said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (1)  Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union?
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court ruled on this after the Civil War. It said there was no secession because the Constitution did not define a right to secede.
> 
> Therefore citizens of Texas and other Confederate states were US citizens before, during and after the War between the States.
Click to expand...

You refer to Texas v White, wherein YOUR SCOTUS rendered its opinion (NOT RULING) based on the perpetuity stated in the Articles, which were no longer in force. THE SCOTUS opinions are limited, and too and to be based on the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution and the laws established in pursuance thereof. There was now law, or CONstitutional amendment for the bases of their opinion, within the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, or any law, therefore they refereed to a Constitution that was supposedly abandoned. Also Texas v White was a case concerning bonds, and the reference to the Articles was simple DICTA.


----------



## Liminal

James Everett said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (1)  Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union?  Why or why not?  They came in voluntarily, right?
> 
> (2)  What is a "proclamation" (e.g., the "Emancipation Proclamation")?  Does it have the force of law within the United States?  Where, in Article II does the President get this power?  Why did President Lincoln not free the slaves in the Border States?  Was the emancipation legal anywhere?  Why was the thirteenth amendment necessary?
> 
> (3)  On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders?   Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)?  Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This guy sums it all up brilliantly, but it's only for people who have the patience to learn.
> 
> Discussion Legacies Civil War Video C-SPAN.org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liminal,
> Thank you for sharing.
> I am about 3/4ths of the way through the presentation, but it is very late, and I am very tired after a long day, therefore I will finish it tomorrow. A few of things I would point out at this early point.....
> One is that he is correct in that most peoples understanding is base and fixed, and will not listen to the more complex, (These are my words, as I am paraphrasing), I witness this in every discussion, and it sure has been a mainstay in this thread.
> Another observation at this point is that the legalities of secession have not been addressed, aside from his reference to rebellion against the federal government, though he was using it as an example: I would state that there must first be a law in place for there to be a rebellion as rebellion is defined as "Insurrection against lawful authority" hence for their to be a lawful authority, there must first be a law in place.
> I personally have never claimed that one of, if not the major issue for the Southern States was slavery, however, as awful as slavery was, slavery was of no consequence to the legality of secession, and yet it has always been of interest to me, that at the same time the U.S. was supposedly fighting to free the slaves, it was also exterminating the Native American Indian, and forcing survivors into internment camps called reservations.
> There is no moral high ground held by either side concerning the treatment of our fellow man.
> While I had ancestors who fought for our Confederacy, such is not of great interest to me aside from being in aw of what they were able to accomplish, but I do not live vicariously through them as I witnessed in the majority of our people.
> My interest is only in defending the legality of secession and the fact that it was accomplished, for the purpose of restoring federalism and the founders ideal, which can only, in my view be gained by returning to what I equate to the first incorrect equation of a math problem, wherein every subsequent equation is made incorrect by the first, and the answer will never come out correct, (The answer being liberty).
> The first incorrect equation was the adoption of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, and the only middle ground as the speaker was suggesting be found, is in my view a return to the Articles, which is absent of the two party duopoly that divides and conquers. In this way the union of States would be restored, federalism would be restored along with a chance at getting the end result correct, which is liberty.
> Yet so many are to base to understand the complexity of our cause.
Click to expand...


Although I don't really agree with your view about the legality of secession,  I appreciate you actually taking the time to review the video.    I've devoted a lot of time and energy into researching Civil War history, and I consider myself a pretty solid amateur authority on the Confederacy.  Happy to discuss the subject with you any time.


----------



## James Everett

Liminal said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (1)  Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union?  Why or why not?  They came in voluntarily, right?
> 
> (2)  What is a "proclamation" (e.g., the "Emancipation Proclamation")?  Does it have the force of law within the United States?  Where, in Article II does the President get this power?  Why did President Lincoln not free the slaves in the Border States?  Was the emancipation legal anywhere?  Why was the thirteenth amendment necessary?
> 
> (3)  On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders?   Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)?  Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This guy sums it all up brilliantly, but it's only for people who have the patience to learn.
> 
> Discussion Legacies Civil War Video C-SPAN.org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liminal,
> Thank you for sharing.
> I am about 3/4ths of the way through the presentation, but it is very late, and I am very tired after a long day, therefore I will finish it tomorrow. A few of things I would point out at this early point.....
> One is that he is correct in that most peoples understanding is base and fixed, and will not listen to the more complex, (These are my words, as I am paraphrasing), I witness this in every discussion, and it sure has been a mainstay in this thread.
> Another observation at this point is that the legalities of secession have not been addressed, aside from his reference to rebellion against the federal government, though he was using it as an example: I would state that there must first be a law in place for there to be a rebellion as rebellion is defined as "Insurrection against lawful authority" hence for their to be a lawful authority, there must first be a law in place.
> I personally have never claimed that one of, if not the major issue for the Southern States was slavery, however, as awful as slavery was, slavery was of no consequence to the legality of secession, and yet it has always been of interest to me, that at the same time the U.S. was supposedly fighting to free the slaves, it was also exterminating the Native American Indian, and forcing survivors into internment camps called reservations.
> There is no moral high ground held by either side concerning the treatment of our fellow man.
> While I had ancestors who fought for our Confederacy, such is not of great interest to me aside from being in aw of what they were able to accomplish, but I do not live vicariously through them as I witnessed in the majority of our people.
> My interest is only in defending the legality of secession and the fact that it was accomplished, for the purpose of restoring federalism and the founders ideal, which can only, in my view be gained by returning to what I equate to the first incorrect equation of a math problem, wherein every subsequent equation is made incorrect by the first, and the answer will never come out correct, (The answer being liberty).
> The first incorrect equation was the adoption of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, and the only middle ground as the speaker was suggesting be found, is in my view a return to the Articles, which is absent of the two party duopoly that divides and conquers. In this way the union of States would be restored, federalism would be restored along with a chance at getting the end result correct, which is liberty.
> Yet so many are to base to understand the complexity of our cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Although I don't really agree with your view about the legality of secession,  I appreciate you actually taking the time to review the video.    I've devoted a lot of time and energy into researching Civil War history, and I consider myself a pretty solid amateur authority on the Confederacy.  Happy to discuss the subject with you any time.
Click to expand...

My point remains that for there to be a violation of a law, there must first be a law established to violate. There was, nor is a law stating that secession was or is an unlawful or illegal act. 
The only thing remotely related comes from the Articles of Confederation which all claim were replaced. If they were replaced then any and all mention of perpetual was replaced as well. 
If the perpetual clause was carried over, then it would require its enumeration in the new CONstitution; if perpetuity was carried over without enumeration, then what other portions were carried over without enumeration that one may use at a given time to ones advantage?
Besides even all of that, if the union was still to be perpetual, then the 17th amendment to the U.S. CONstitution ended the perpetual union between the States by removing the States from the equation.
The States governments which form each State, are no longer participants in the central body of "the United States" hence there is no longer a union. The purpose of the central body was to unite the States through a collective body called a congress. Under the Articles the congress only consisted of State legislature appointed representatives, under the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, the State legislatures continued to be participants in the union between themselves through a congress containing State appointed Senators as their representatives, maintaining a federal system that existed under the Articles. An addition was made in the form of a national component wherein an addition to the congress was made in the form of a House of Representatives  which was made up of districts without regard to State affiliation, that body was/is made up of elected officials to represent the whole of the people, (this is the addition of the national component).
Now was a result of the 17th amendment the State governments do not appoint representatives to represent the State governments, hence the States are no longer participants as the have no representation/no part in a union between States. Now only the people as a whole and the two corporately owned political party,s have representation, as the Senators through election instead of appointment, owe their allegiance political party of their affiliation rather than a State government that appointed them and could re-call them in the event of poor representation of the government which appointed them.


----------



## JakeStarkey

OThe states have no been sovereign since ACC willingly forwarded the Constitution to the states, as agents of We the People, for ratification or not.  The 17th in no way frustrates the perpetual union of the nation.


----------



## Liminal

James Everett said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (1)  Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union?  Why or why not?  They came in voluntarily, right?
> 
> (2)  What is a "proclamation" (e.g., the "Emancipation Proclamation")?  Does it have the force of law within the United States?  Where, in Article II does the President get this power?  Why did President Lincoln not free the slaves in the Border States?  Was the emancipation legal anywhere?  Why was the thirteenth amendment necessary?
> 
> (3)  On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders?   Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)?  Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This guy sums it all up brilliantly, but it's only for people who have the patience to learn.
> 
> Discussion Legacies Civil War Video C-SPAN.org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liminal,
> Thank you for sharing.
> I am about 3/4ths of the way through the presentation, but it is very late, and I am very tired after a long day, therefore I will finish it tomorrow. A few of things I would point out at this early point.....
> One is that he is correct in that most peoples understanding is base and fixed, and will not listen to the more complex, (These are my words, as I am paraphrasing), I witness this in every discussion, and it sure has been a mainstay in this thread.
> Another observation at this point is that the legalities of secession have not been addressed, aside from his reference to rebellion against the federal government, though he was using it as an example: I would state that there must first be a law in place for there to be a rebellion as rebellion is defined as "Insurrection against lawful authority" hence for their to be a lawful authority, there must first be a law in place.
> I personally have never claimed that one of, if not the major issue for the Southern States was slavery, however, as awful as slavery was, slavery was of no consequence to the legality of secession, and yet it has always been of interest to me, that at the same time the U.S. was supposedly fighting to free the slaves, it was also exterminating the Native American Indian, and forcing survivors into internment camps called reservations.
> There is no moral high ground held by either side concerning the treatment of our fellow man.
> While I had ancestors who fought for our Confederacy, such is not of great interest to me aside from being in aw of what they were able to accomplish, but I do not live vicariously through them as I witnessed in the majority of our people.
> My interest is only in defending the legality of secession and the fact that it was accomplished, for the purpose of restoring federalism and the founders ideal, which can only, in my view be gained by returning to what I equate to the first incorrect equation of a math problem, wherein every subsequent equation is made incorrect by the first, and the answer will never come out correct, (The answer being liberty).
> The first incorrect equation was the adoption of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, and the only middle ground as the speaker was suggesting be found, is in my view a return to the Articles, which is absent of the two party duopoly that divides and conquers. In this way the union of States would be restored, federalism would be restored along with a chance at getting the end result correct, which is liberty.
> Yet so many are to base to understand the complexity of our cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Although I don't really agree with your view about the legality of secession,  I appreciate you actually taking the time to review the video.    I've devoted a lot of time and energy into researching Civil War history, and I consider myself a pretty solid amateur authority on the Confederacy.  Happy to discuss the subject with you any time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My point remains that for there to be a violation of a law, there must first be a law established to violate. There was, nor is a law stating that secession was or is an unlawful or illegal act.
> The only thing remotely related comes from the Articles of Confederation which all claim were replaced. If they were replaced then any and all mention of perpetual was replaced as well.
> If the perpetual clause was carried over, then it would require its enumeration in the new CONstitution; if perpetuity was carried over without enumeration, then what other portions were carried over without enumeration that one may use at a given time to ones advantage?
> Besides even all of that, if the union was still to be perpetual, then the 17th amendment to the U.S. CONstitution ended the perpetual union between the States by removing the States from the equation.
> The States governments which form each State, are no longer participants in the central body of "the United States" hence there is no longer a union. The purpose of the central body was to unite the States through a collective body called a congress. Under the Articles the congress only consisted of State legislature appointed representatives, under the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, the State legislatures continued to be participants in the union between themselves through a congress containing State appointed Senators as their representatives, maintaining a federal system that existed under the Articles. An addition was made in the form of a national component wherein an addition to the congress was made in the form of a House of Representatives  which was made up of districts without regard to State affiliation, that body was/is made up of elected officials to represent the whole of the people, (this is the addition of the national component).
> Now was a result of the 17th amendment the State governments do not appoint representatives to represent the State governments, hence the States are no longer participants as the have no representation/no part in a union between States. Now only the people as a whole and the two corporately owned political party,s have representation, as the Senators through election instead of appointment, owe their allegiance political party of their affiliation rather than a State government that appointed them and could re-call them in the event of poor representation of the government which appointed them.
Click to expand...


I would never claim to be any kind of expert on Constitutional questions, so you won't hear me argue from a technically legal standpoint.   My interests are primarily military history and the political and cultural history surrounding that.  
However, I can share my personal views about secession.   It's a question that seems to have some renewed interest in a modern context, so that's how I'm frame the opinion.

If a group of citizens in Dog Patch, Idaho managed to gain political control over the state government, and subsequently proclaim Idaho to be a separate and sovereign nation;  I would say to them:  You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country too.   Just because some corrupt and self serving politicians get a bug up their asses, doesn't give them the right to tear apart a nation.  They didn't build it, they stand on the shoulders of those who did.


----------



## natstew

InfoQuest said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (1)  Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union?
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court ruled on this after the Civil War. It said there was no secession because the Constitution did not define a right to secede.
> 
> Therefore citizens of Texas and other Confederate states were US citizens before, during and after the War between the States.
Click to expand...


If that's true, why did the Confederate States have to be re-admitted to the Union, and re-write their State Constitutions to be re- admitted?


----------



## James Everett

Liminal said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (1)  Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union?  Why or why not?  They came in voluntarily, right?
> 
> (2)  What is a "proclamation" (e.g., the "Emancipation Proclamation")?  Does it have the force of law within the United States?  Where, in Article II does the President get this power?  Why did President Lincoln not free the slaves in the Border States?  Was the emancipation legal anywhere?  Why was the thirteenth amendment necessary?
> 
> (3)  On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders?   Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)?  Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This guy sums it all up brilliantly, but it's only for people who have the patience to learn.
> 
> Discussion Legacies Civil War Video C-SPAN.org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liminal,
> Thank you for sharing.
> I am about 3/4ths of the way through the presentation, but it is very late, and I am very tired after a long day, therefore I will finish it tomorrow. A few of things I would point out at this early point.....
> One is that he is correct in that most peoples understanding is base and fixed, and will not listen to the more complex, (These are my words, as I am paraphrasing), I witness this in every discussion, and it sure has been a mainstay in this thread.
> Another observation at this point is that the legalities of secession have not been addressed, aside from his reference to rebellion against the federal government, though he was using it as an example: I would state that there must first be a law in place for there to be a rebellion as rebellion is defined as "Insurrection against lawful authority" hence for their to be a lawful authority, there must first be a law in place.
> I personally have never claimed that one of, if not the major issue for the Southern States was slavery, however, as awful as slavery was, slavery was of no consequence to the legality of secession, and yet it has always been of interest to me, that at the same time the U.S. was supposedly fighting to free the slaves, it was also exterminating the Native American Indian, and forcing survivors into internment camps called reservations.
> There is no moral high ground held by either side concerning the treatment of our fellow man.
> While I had ancestors who fought for our Confederacy, such is not of great interest to me aside from being in aw of what they were able to accomplish, but I do not live vicariously through them as I witnessed in the majority of our people.
> My interest is only in defending the legality of secession and the fact that it was accomplished, for the purpose of restoring federalism and the founders ideal, which can only, in my view be gained by returning to what I equate to the first incorrect equation of a math problem, wherein every subsequent equation is made incorrect by the first, and the answer will never come out correct, (The answer being liberty).
> The first incorrect equation was the adoption of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, and the only middle ground as the speaker was suggesting be found, is in my view a return to the Articles, which is absent of the two party duopoly that divides and conquers. In this way the union of States would be restored, federalism would be restored along with a chance at getting the end result correct, which is liberty.
> Yet so many are to base to understand the complexity of our cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Although I don't really agree with your view about the legality of secession,  I appreciate you actually taking the time to review the video.    I've devoted a lot of time and energy into researching Civil War history, and I consider myself a pretty solid amateur authority on the Confederacy.  Happy to discuss the subject with you any time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My point remains that for there to be a violation of a law, there must first be a law established to violate. There was, nor is a law stating that secession was or is an unlawful or illegal act.
> The only thing remotely related comes from the Articles of Confederation which all claim were replaced. If they were replaced then any and all mention of perpetual was replaced as well.
> If the perpetual clause was carried over, then it would require its enumeration in the new CONstitution; if perpetuity was carried over without enumeration, then what other portions were carried over without enumeration that one may use at a given time to ones advantage?
> Besides even all of that, if the union was still to be perpetual, then the 17th amendment to the U.S. CONstitution ended the perpetual union between the States by removing the States from the equation.
> The States governments which form each State, are no longer participants in the central body of "the United States" hence there is no longer a union. The purpose of the central body was to unite the States through a collective body called a congress. Under the Articles the congress only consisted of State legislature appointed representatives, under the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, the State legislatures continued to be participants in the union between themselves through a congress containing State appointed Senators as their representatives, maintaining a federal system that existed under the Articles. An addition was made in the form of a national component wherein an addition to the congress was made in the form of a House of Representatives  which was made up of districts without regard to State affiliation, that body was/is made up of elected officials to represent the whole of the people, (this is the addition of the national component).
> Now was a result of the 17th amendment the State governments do not appoint representatives to represent the State governments, hence the States are no longer participants as the have no representation/no part in a union between States. Now only the people as a whole and the two corporately owned political party,s have representation, as the Senators through election instead of appointment, owe their allegiance political party of their affiliation rather than a State government that appointed them and could re-call them in the event of poor representation of the government which appointed them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would never claim to be any kind of expert on Constitutional questions, so you won't hear me argue from a technically legal standpoint.   My interests are primary military history and the political and cultural history surrounding that.
> However, I can share my personal views about secession.   It's a question that seems to have some renewed interest in a modern context, so that's how I'm frame the opinion.
> 
> If a group of citizens in Dog Patch, Idaho managed to gain political control over the state government, and subsequently proclaim Idaho to be a separate and sovereign nation;  I would say to them:  You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country too.   Just because some corrupt and self serving politicians get a bug up their asses, doesn't give them the right to tear apart a nation.  They didn't build it, they stand on the shoulders of those who did.
Click to expand...

M


Liminal said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (1)  Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union?  Why or why not?  They came in voluntarily, right?
> 
> (2)  What is a "proclamation" (e.g., the "Emancipation Proclamation")?  Does it have the force of law within the United States?  Where, in Article II does the President get this power?  Why did President Lincoln not free the slaves in the Border States?  Was the emancipation legal anywhere?  Why was the thirteenth amendment necessary?
> 
> (3)  On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders?   Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)?  Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This guy sums it all up brilliantly, but it's only for people who have the patience to learn.
> 
> Discussion Legacies Civil War Video C-SPAN.org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liminal,
> Thank you for sharing.
> I am about 3/4ths of the way through the presentation, but it is very late, and I am very tired after a long day, therefore I will finish it tomorrow. A few of things I would point out at this early point.....
> One is that he is correct in that most peoples understanding is base and fixed, and will not listen to the more complex, (These are my words, as I am paraphrasing), I witness this in every discussion, and it sure has been a mainstay in this thread.
> Another observation at this point is that the legalities of secession have not been addressed, aside from his reference to rebellion against the federal government, though he was using it as an example: I would state that there must first be a law in place for there to be a rebellion as rebellion is defined as "Insurrection against lawful authority" hence for their to be a lawful authority, there must first be a law in place.
> I personally have never claimed that one of, if not the major issue for the Southern States was slavery, however, as awful as slavery was, slavery was of no consequence to the legality of secession, and yet it has always been of interest to me, that at the same time the U.S. was supposedly fighting to free the slaves, it was also exterminating the Native American Indian, and forcing survivors into internment camps called reservations.
> There is no moral high ground held by either side concerning the treatment of our fellow man.
> While I had ancestors who fought for our Confederacy, such is not of great interest to me aside from being in aw of what they were able to accomplish, but I do not live vicariously through them as I witnessed in the majority of our people.
> My interest is only in defending the legality of secession and the fact that it was accomplished, for the purpose of restoring federalism and the founders ideal, which can only, in my view be gained by returning to what I equate to the first incorrect equation of a math problem, wherein every subsequent equation is made incorrect by the first, and the answer will never come out correct, (The answer being liberty).
> The first incorrect equation was the adoption of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, and the only middle ground as the speaker was suggesting be found, is in my view a return to the Articles, which is absent of the two party duopoly that divides and conquers. In this way the union of States would be restored, federalism would be restored along with a chance at getting the end result correct, which is liberty.
> Yet so many are to base to understand the complexity of our cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Although I don't really agree with your view about the legality of secession,  I appreciate you actually taking the time to review the video.    I've devoted a lot of time and energy into researching Civil War history, and I consider myself a pretty solid amateur authority on the Confederacy.  Happy to discuss the subject with you any time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My point remains that for there to be a violation of a law, there must first be a law established to violate. There was, nor is a law stating that secession was or is an unlawful or illegal act.
> The only thing remotely related comes from the Articles of Confederation which all claim were replaced. If they were replaced then any and all mention of perpetual was replaced as well.
> If the perpetual clause was carried over, then it would require its enumeration in the new CONstitution; if perpetuity was carried over without enumeration, then what other portions were carried over without enumeration that one may use at a given time to ones advantage?
> Besides even all of that, if the union was still to be perpetual, then the 17th amendment to the U.S. CONstitution ended the perpetual union between the States by removing the States from the equation.
> The States governments which form each State, are no longer participants in the central body of "the United States" hence there is no longer a union. The purpose of the central body was to unite the States through a collective body called a congress. Under the Articles the congress only consisted of State legislature appointed representatives, under the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, the State legislatures continued to be participants in the union between themselves through a congress containing State appointed Senators as their representatives, maintaining a federal system that existed under the Articles. An addition was made in the form of a national component wherein an addition to the congress was made in the form of a House of Representatives  which was made up of districts without regard to State affiliation, that body was/is made up of elected officials to represent the whole of the people, (this is the addition of the national component).
> Now was a result of the 17th amendment the State governments do not appoint representatives to represent the State governments, hence the States are no longer participants as the have no representation/no part in a union between States. Now only the people as a whole and the two corporately owned political party,s have representation, as the Senators through election instead of appointment, owe their allegiance political party of their affiliation rather than a State government that appointed them and could re-call them in the event of poor representation of the government which appointed them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would never claim to be any kind of expert on Constitutional questions, so you won't hear me argue from a technically legal standpoint.   My interests are primary military history and the political and cultural history surrounding that.
> However, I can share my personal views about secession.   It's a question that seems to have some renewed interest in a modern context, so that's how I'm frame the opinion.
> 
> If a group of citizens in Dog Patch, Idaho managed to gain political control over the state government, and subsequently proclaim Idaho to be a separate and sovereign nation;  I would say to them:  You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country too.   Just because some corrupt and self serving politicians get a bug up their asses, doesn't give them the right to tear apart a nation.  They didn't build it, they stand on the shoulders of those who did.
Click to expand...

Here is my response to not, simply you, but many who have made a similar statement......
You are looking at the union through a distorted lens.
You statement that......
*"You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country 
too"*
_This was before the Lincoln's war of rebellion, and the subsequient 17th amendment as a result thereof, (A UNION OF STATES) ......
As Alexander Hamilton stated in "The Federalist #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. "*
Point being is that there was *NOT* suppose to be a consolidation into one complete national sovereignty, yet you view Idaho as YOURS. I never view another State as mine, I view it as a member State in a union/confederacy of States, just as one would view those States united under the United Nations Charter. A Constitution after all is a Charter, between States, it is a treaty between States, it is a compact between States.
Why do you think that another State belongs to you?
Here are a few SCOTUS opinions concerning this municipal jurisdiction that so many think that they hold over a State wherein they do not reside, as if.....
*"You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country 
too"*
 Pollard’s Lessee v Hagan, that for the United States, (The States collectively in union) to hold municipal jurisdiction within a State that …….
*“Such a power is not only repugnant to the Constitution, but it is inconsistent with the spirit and intention of the deeds of cession.”
“Then to Alabama belong the navigable waters, and soils under them, in controversy in this case, subject to the rights surrendered by the Constitution to the United States, and no compact that might be made between her and the United States could diminish or enlarge these rights.”*

The United States never held municipal jurisdiction within a State once a State is formed and admitted to the union: *"the soil, the shores, the waters, and land beneath the waters belong to the State respectively:"*
We see here that Idaho does NOT belong to you as in.....
_*"You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country 
too"
Also in Harcourt v. Gaillard, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 523, 526, 527 (1827), we find that the U.S. Court stated:

“There was no territory within the United States that was claimed in any other right than that of some one of the confederated states; therefore, there could be no acquisition of territory made by the United States distinct from, or independent of some one of the states.

“Each declared itself sovereign and independent, according to the limits of its territory.

“[T]he soil and sovereignty within their acknowledged limits were as much theirs at the declaration of independence as at this hour.”

Also in M’Ilvaine v. Coxe’s Lessee, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 209, 212 (1808), where it was held:

“This opinion is predicated upon a principle which is believed to be undeniable, that the several states which composed this Union, so far at least as regarded their municipal regulations, became entitled, from the time when they declared themselves independent, to all the rights and powers of sovereign states, and that they did not derive them from concessions made by the British king. The treaty of peace contains a recognition of their independence, not a grant of it. From hence it results, that the laws of the several state governments were the laws of sovereign states, and as such were obligatory upon the people of such state, from the time they were enacted.”

Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17 of the U.S. Constitution, which read as follows:

“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.”
Here we see that any jurisdiction of the States as a collective in government formation has NO JURISDICTION OUTSIDE OF THE TEN MILES SQUARE THAT IS THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS NON-EXISTENT EXCEPT WITHIN A U.S. FORT, AN ARSENAL, A U.S. GOVERNMENT BUILDING, MAGAZINE, OR DOCK YARD, THUS ANY JURISDICTION BEYOND THAT IS THAT OF EACH STATE RESPECTIVELY/INDIVIDUALLY.*_
What I am pointing out here is that this was intended to be a union of States, not a consolidation of them, I as a Tennessean do not own New YORK, Idaho or any other State, I cannot claim ...
_*"You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country 
too"*_
*They are suppose to be separate States united, NOT CONSOLIDATED.*


----------



## natstew

As a  72 year old fifth generation Florida Cracker with two Great Grandfathers in the 16th Maine Infantry at Gettysburg and two Great Grandfathers in the Fifth Florida Infantry, also at Gettysburg, Yes, that's four Great Grandfathers in opposing units at the greatest battle of the War Of Northern Aggression, or The War Between The States, or The War To Free The Slaves, or whatever you choose to call it.  (16th Maine Thomas Dorset and Sylvanus Chick, Mothers side, My Mother was the daughter of a "Brush Arbor Preacher" travelling through Tallahassee when my father met her), and (William James Stewart Private, Company A fifth Florida Infantry Reg., and Robert May Private Fifth Florida Infantry, William James Stewart was my direct Grandfather on my Father's side, Robert May was the Father of my Father's Mother),  anyway, if you're not confused maybe you can understand how I grew up a little confused about the War. My Mother's side justified the Northern Aggression and my Father's side justified the Southern secession.
I see all four of my G Grandfathers fighting for patriotic reasons. Only the May's owned slaves and family tradition has it that Asa May was trying to figure a way to do away with slavery in a peaceful way without being thrown into poverty.  The War has always been an obsession with me. Thank everyone for their input.


----------



## James Everett

natstew said:


> InfoQuest said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (1)  Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union?
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court ruled on this after the Civil War. It said there was no secession because the Constitution did not define a right to secede.
> 
> Therefore citizens of Texas and other Confederate states were US citizens before, during and after the War between the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that's true, why did the Confederate States have to be re-admitted to the Union, and re-write their State Constitutions to be re- admitted?
Click to expand...

The Confederate States were NOT re-admitted, this was an illusion. The Confederate States were replaces....
A State by definition is *"A MODE OF GOVERNMENT"
Example of how the Confederate States were replaced, therefore WERE NOT RE-ADMITTED.....
Isham (I'-sam) G. Harris, of Memphis, was elected governor of Tennessee in 1857, and again in 1859, both times by large majorities.
On February 22 upon the invasion and occupation of Tennessee Grant declared martial law
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 Confederate 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.
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 vercomes 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]
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.
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).
Governor Harris was a lame duck governor at the time of the invasion of Tennessee, Robert Caruthers was governor elect, hence the dejure elected governor of Tennessee, yet was NOT allowed to take office.....
William Gannaway Brownlow was elected Governor on March 4.
This election, was limited to only pro-Unionists.
It was under this appointed government/State that this NEW TENNESSEE was admitted, not the de jure Confederate State of Tennessee.
If The Confederate State of Tennessee had been re-admitted, then that would indicate that secession had been accomplished which would NOT be possible if secession was indeed illegal.
So one must answer the question....
Was the Confederate State of Tennessee "re-admitted" or replaced by another State?


*


----------



## James Everett

natstew said:


> As a  72 year old fifth generation Florida Cracker with two Great Grandfathers in the 16th Maine Infantry at Gettysburg and two Great Grandfathers in the Fifth Florida Infantry, also at Gettysburg, Yes, that's four Great Grandfathers in opposing units at the greatest battle of the War Of Northern Aggression, or The War Between The States, or The War To Free The Slaves, or whatever you choose to call it.  (16th Maine Thomas Dorset and Sylvanus Chick, Mothers side, My Mother was the daughter of a "Brush Arbor Preacher" travelling through Tallahassee when my father met her), and (William James Stewart Private, Company A fifth Florida Infantry Reg., and Robert May Private Fifth Florida Infantry, William James Stewart was my direct Grandfather on my Father's side, Robert May was the Father of my Father's Mother),  anyway, if you're not confused maybe you can understand how I grew up a little confused about the War. My Mother's side justified the Northern Aggression and my Father's side justified the Southern secession.
> I see all four of my G Grandfathers fighting for patriotic reasons. Only the May's owned slaves and family tradition has it that Asa May was trying to figure a way to do away with slavery in a peaceful way without being thrown into poverty.  The War has always been an obsession with me. Thank everyone for their input.


*I only hope that I have stated the truth,as it is,in a way that will reveal it to you.
Thank you Sir.*


----------



## Liminal

James Everett said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> This guy sums it all up brilliantly, but it's only for people who have the patience to learn.
> 
> Discussion Legacies Civil War Video C-SPAN.org
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal,
> Thank you for sharing.
> I am about 3/4ths of the way through the presentation, but it is very late, and I am very tired after a long day, therefore I will finish it tomorrow. A few of things I would point out at this early point.....
> One is that he is correct in that most peoples understanding is base and fixed, and will not listen to the more complex, (These are my words, as I am paraphrasing), I witness this in every discussion, and it sure has been a mainstay in this thread.
> Another observation at this point is that the legalities of secession have not been addressed, aside from his reference to rebellion against the federal government, though he was using it as an example: I would state that there must first be a law in place for there to be a rebellion as rebellion is defined as "Insurrection against lawful authority" hence for their to be a lawful authority, there must first be a law in place.
> I personally have never claimed that one of, if not the major issue for the Southern States was slavery, however, as awful as slavery was, slavery was of no consequence to the legality of secession, and yet it has always been of interest to me, that at the same time the U.S. was supposedly fighting to free the slaves, it was also exterminating the Native American Indian, and forcing survivors into internment camps called reservations.
> There is no moral high ground held by either side concerning the treatment of our fellow man.
> While I had ancestors who fought for our Confederacy, such is not of great interest to me aside from being in aw of what they were able to accomplish, but I do not live vicariously through them as I witnessed in the majority of our people.
> My interest is only in defending the legality of secession and the fact that it was accomplished, for the purpose of restoring federalism and the founders ideal, which can only, in my view be gained by returning to what I equate to the first incorrect equation of a math problem, wherein every subsequent equation is made incorrect by the first, and the answer will never come out correct, (The answer being liberty).
> The first incorrect equation was the adoption of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, and the only middle ground as the speaker was suggesting be found, is in my view a return to the Articles, which is absent of the two party duopoly that divides and conquers. In this way the union of States would be restored, federalism would be restored along with a chance at getting the end result correct, which is liberty.
> Yet so many are to base to understand the complexity of our cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Although I don't really agree with your view about the legality of secession,  I appreciate you actually taking the time to review the video.    I've devoted a lot of time and energy into researching Civil War history, and I consider myself a pretty solid amateur authority on the Confederacy.  Happy to discuss the subject with you any time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My point remains that for there to be a violation of a law, there must first be a law established to violate. There was, nor is a law stating that secession was or is an unlawful or illegal act.
> The only thing remotely related comes from the Articles of Confederation which all claim were replaced. If they were replaced then any and all mention of perpetual was replaced as well.
> If the perpetual clause was carried over, then it would require its enumeration in the new CONstitution; if perpetuity was carried over without enumeration, then what other portions were carried over without enumeration that one may use at a given time to ones advantage?
> Besides even all of that, if the union was still to be perpetual, then the 17th amendment to the U.S. CONstitution ended the perpetual union between the States by removing the States from the equation.
> The States governments which form each State, are no longer participants in the central body of "the United States" hence there is no longer a union. The purpose of the central body was to unite the States through a collective body called a congress. Under the Articles the congress only consisted of State legislature appointed representatives, under the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, the State legislatures continued to be participants in the union between themselves through a congress containing State appointed Senators as their representatives, maintaining a federal system that existed under the Articles. An addition was made in the form of a national component wherein an addition to the congress was made in the form of a House of Representatives  which was made up of districts without regard to State affiliation, that body was/is made up of elected officials to represent the whole of the people, (this is the addition of the national component).
> Now was a result of the 17th amendment the State governments do not appoint representatives to represent the State governments, hence the States are no longer participants as the have no representation/no part in a union between States. Now only the people as a whole and the two corporately owned political party,s have representation, as the Senators through election instead of appointment, owe their allegiance political party of their affiliation rather than a State government that appointed them and could re-call them in the event of poor representation of the government which appointed them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would never claim to be any kind of expert on Constitutional questions, so you won't hear me argue from a technically legal standpoint.   My interests are primary military history and the political and cultural history surrounding that.
> However, I can share my personal views about secession.   It's a question that seems to have some renewed interest in a modern context, so that's how I'm frame the opinion.
> 
> If a group of citizens in Dog Patch, Idaho managed to gain political control over the state government, and subsequently proclaim Idaho to be a separate and sovereign nation;  I would say to them:  You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country too.   Just because some corrupt and self serving politicians get a bug up their asses, doesn't give them the right to tear apart a nation.  They didn't build it, they stand on the shoulders of those who did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> M
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> This guy sums it all up brilliantly, but it's only for people who have the patience to learn.
> 
> Discussion Legacies Civil War Video C-SPAN.org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liminal,
> Thank you for sharing.
> I am about 3/4ths of the way through the presentation, but it is very late, and I am very tired after a long day, therefore I will finish it tomorrow. A few of things I would point out at this early point.....
> One is that he is correct in that most peoples understanding is base and fixed, and will not listen to the more complex, (These are my words, as I am paraphrasing), I witness this in every discussion, and it sure has been a mainstay in this thread.
> Another observation at this point is that the legalities of secession have not been addressed, aside from his reference to rebellion against the federal government, though he was using it as an example: I would state that there must first be a law in place for there to be a rebellion as rebellion is defined as "Insurrection against lawful authority" hence for their to be a lawful authority, there must first be a law in place.
> I personally have never claimed that one of, if not the major issue for the Southern States was slavery, however, as awful as slavery was, slavery was of no consequence to the legality of secession, and yet it has always been of interest to me, that at the same time the U.S. was supposedly fighting to free the slaves, it was also exterminating the Native American Indian, and forcing survivors into internment camps called reservations.
> There is no moral high ground held by either side concerning the treatment of our fellow man.
> While I had ancestors who fought for our Confederacy, such is not of great interest to me aside from being in aw of what they were able to accomplish, but I do not live vicariously through them as I witnessed in the majority of our people.
> My interest is only in defending the legality of secession and the fact that it was accomplished, for the purpose of restoring federalism and the founders ideal, which can only, in my view be gained by returning to what I equate to the first incorrect equation of a math problem, wherein every subsequent equation is made incorrect by the first, and the answer will never come out correct, (The answer being liberty).
> The first incorrect equation was the adoption of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, and the only middle ground as the speaker was suggesting be found, is in my view a return to the Articles, which is absent of the two party duopoly that divides and conquers. In this way the union of States would be restored, federalism would be restored along with a chance at getting the end result correct, which is liberty.
> Yet so many are to base to understand the complexity of our cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Although I don't really agree with your view about the legality of secession,  I appreciate you actually taking the time to review the video.    I've devoted a lot of time and energy into researching Civil War history, and I consider myself a pretty solid amateur authority on the Confederacy.  Happy to discuss the subject with you any time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My point remains that for there to be a violation of a law, there must first be a law established to violate. There was, nor is a law stating that secession was or is an unlawful or illegal act.
> The only thing remotely related comes from the Articles of Confederation which all claim were replaced. If they were replaced then any and all mention of perpetual was replaced as well.
> If the perpetual clause was carried over, then it would require its enumeration in the new CONstitution; if perpetuity was carried over without enumeration, then what other portions were carried over without enumeration that one may use at a given time to ones advantage?
> Besides even all of that, if the union was still to be perpetual, then the 17th amendment to the U.S. CONstitution ended the perpetual union between the States by removing the States from the equation.
> The States governments which form each State, are no longer participants in the central body of "the United States" hence there is no longer a union. The purpose of the central body was to unite the States through a collective body called a congress. Under the Articles the congress only consisted of State legislature appointed representatives, under the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, the State legislatures continued to be participants in the union between themselves through a congress containing State appointed Senators as their representatives, maintaining a federal system that existed under the Articles. An addition was made in the form of a national component wherein an addition to the congress was made in the form of a House of Representatives  which was made up of districts without regard to State affiliation, that body was/is made up of elected officials to represent the whole of the people, (this is the addition of the national component).
> Now was a result of the 17th amendment the State governments do not appoint representatives to represent the State governments, hence the States are no longer participants as the have no representation/no part in a union between States. Now only the people as a whole and the two corporately owned political party,s have representation, as the Senators through election instead of appointment, owe their allegiance political party of their affiliation rather than a State government that appointed them and could re-call them in the event of poor representation of the government which appointed them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would never claim to be any kind of expert on Constitutional questions, so you won't hear me argue from a technically legal standpoint.   My interests are primary military history and the political and cultural history surrounding that.
> However, I can share my personal views about secession.   It's a question that seems to have some renewed interest in a modern context, so that's how I'm frame the opinion.
> 
> If a group of citizens in Dog Patch, Idaho managed to gain political control over the state government, and subsequently proclaim Idaho to be a separate and sovereign nation;  I would say to them:  You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country too.   Just because some corrupt and self serving politicians get a bug up their asses, doesn't give them the right to tear apart a nation.  They didn't build it, they stand on the shoulders of those who did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is my response to not, simply you, but many who have made a similar statement......
> You are looking at the union through a distorted lens.
> You statement that......
> *"You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country
> too"*
> _This was before the Lincoln's war of rebellion, and the subsequient 17th amendment as a result thereof, (A UNION OF STATES) ......
> As Alexander Hamilton stated in "The Federalist #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. "*
> Point being is that there was *NOT* suppose to be a consolidation into one complete national sovereignty, yet you view Idaho as YOURS. I never view another State as mine, I view it as a member State in a union/confederacy of States, just as one would view those States united under the United Nations Charter. A Constitution after all is a Charter, between States, it is a treaty between States, it is a compact between States.
> Why do you think that another State belongs to you?
> Here are a few SCOTUS opinions concerning this municipal jurisdiction that so many think that they hold over a State wherein they do not reside, as if.....
> *"You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country
> too"*
> Pollard’s Lessee v Hagan, that for the United States, (The States collectively in union) to hold municipal jurisdiction within a State that …….
> *“Such a power is not only repugnant to the Constitution, but it is inconsistent with the spirit and intention of the deeds of cession.”
> “Then to Alabama belong the navigable waters, and soils under them, in controversy in this case, subject to the rights surrendered by the Constitution to the United States, and no compact that might be made between her and the United States could diminish or enlarge these rights.”*
> 
> The United States never held municipal jurisdiction within a State once a State is formed and admitted to the union: *"the soil, the shores, the waters, and land beneath the waters belong to the State respectively:"*
> We see here that Idaho does NOT belong to you as in.....
> _*"You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country
> too"
> Also in Harcourt v. Gaillard, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 523, 526, 527 (1827), we find that the U.S. Court stated:
> 
> “There was no territory within the United States that was claimed in any other right than that of some one of the confederated states; therefore, there could be no acquisition of territory made by the United States distinct from, or independent of some one of the states.
> 
> “Each declared itself sovereign and independent, according to the limits of its territory.
> 
> “[T]he soil and sovereignty within their acknowledged limits were as much theirs at the declaration of independence as at this hour.”
> 
> Also in M’Ilvaine v. Coxe’s Lessee, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 209, 212 (1808), where it was held:
> 
> “This opinion is predicated upon a principle which is believed to be undeniable, that the several states which composed this Union, so far at least as regarded their municipal regulations, became entitled, from the time when they declared themselves independent, to all the rights and powers of sovereign states, and that they did not derive them from concessions made by the British king. The treaty of peace contains a recognition of their independence, not a grant of it. From hence it results, that the laws of the several state governments were the laws of sovereign states, and as such were obligatory upon the people of such state, from the time they were enacted.”
> 
> Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17 of the U.S. Constitution, which read as follows:
> 
> “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.”
> Here we see that any jurisdiction of the States as a collective in government formation has NO JURISDICTION OUTSIDE OF THE TEN MILES SQUARE THAT IS THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS NON-EXISTENT EXCEPT WITHIN A U.S. FORT, AN ARSENAL, A U.S. GOVERNMENT BUILDING, MAGAZINE, OR DOCK YARD, THUS ANY JURISDICTION BEYOND THAT IS THAT OF EACH STATE RESPECTIVELY/INDIVIDUALLY.*_
> What I am pointing out here is that this was intended to be a union of States, not a consolidation of them, I as a Tennessean do not own New YORK, Idaho or any other State, I cannot claim ...
> _*"You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country
> too"*_
> *They are suppose to be separate States united, NOT CONSOLIDATED.*
Click to expand...




James Everett said:


> natstew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> InfoQuest said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (1)  Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union?
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court ruled on this after the Civil War. It said there was no secession because the Constitution did not define a right to secede.
> 
> Therefore citizens of Texas and other Confederate states were US citizens before, during and after the War between the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that's true, why did the Confederate States have to be re-admitted to the Union, and re-write their State Constitutions to be re- admitted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Confederate States were NOT re-admitted, this was an illusion. The Confederate States were replaces....
> A State by definition is *"A MODE OF GOVERNMENT"
> Example of how the Confederate States were replaced, therefore WERE NOT RE-ADMITTED.....
> Isham (I'-sam) G. Harris, of Memphis, was elected governor of Tennessee in 1857, and again in 1859, both times by large majorities.
> On February 22 upon the invasion and occupation of Tennessee Grant declared martial law
> 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 Confederate 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.
> 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 vercomes 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]
> 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.
> 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).
> Governor Harris was a lame duck governor at the time of the invasion of Tennessee, Robert Caruthers was governor elect, hence the dejure elected governor of Tennessee, yet was NOT allowed to take office.....
> William Gannaway Brownlow was elected Governor on March 4.
> This election, was limited to only pro-Unionists.
> It was under this appointed government/State that this NEW TENNESSEE was admitted, not the de jure Confederate State of Tennessee.
> If The Confederate State of Tennessee had been re-admitted, then that would indicate that secession had been accomplished which would NOT be possible if secession was indeed illegal.
> So one must answer the question....
> Was the Confederate State of Tennessee "re-admitted" or replaced by another State?
> 
> *
Click to expand...


I'm much more familiar with the battles of Franklin, Shiloh, Stones River and Nashville.   I've actually made quite a study of the campaigns in Tennessee.  That aside, my answer to your argument is:  you don't own Tennessee any more than I do.   In any case the proponents of secession have an extremely limited scope and circumstance to their argument, more about fine legal distinctions rather than any actual principles.   If you believe secession is an absolute right based on some principle, then you should have no problem when the result is West Virginia.


----------



## James Everett

Liminal said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal,
> Thank you for sharing.
> I am about 3/4ths of the way through the presentation, but it is very late, and I am very tired after a long day, therefore I will finish it tomorrow. A few of things I would point out at this early point.....
> One is that he is correct in that most peoples understanding is base and fixed, and will not listen to the more complex, (These are my words, as I am paraphrasing), I witness this in every discussion, and it sure has been a mainstay in this thread.
> Another observation at this point is that the legalities of secession have not been addressed, aside from his reference to rebellion against the federal government, though he was using it as an example: I would state that there must first be a law in place for there to be a rebellion as rebellion is defined as "Insurrection against lawful authority" hence for their to be a lawful authority, there must first be a law in place.
> I personally have never claimed that one of, if not the major issue for the Southern States was slavery, however, as awful as slavery was, slavery was of no consequence to the legality of secession, and yet it has always been of interest to me, that at the same time the U.S. was supposedly fighting to free the slaves, it was also exterminating the Native American Indian, and forcing survivors into internment camps called reservations.
> There is no moral high ground held by either side concerning the treatment of our fellow man.
> While I had ancestors who fought for our Confederacy, such is not of great interest to me aside from being in aw of what they were able to accomplish, but I do not live vicariously through them as I witnessed in the majority of our people.
> My interest is only in defending the legality of secession and the fact that it was accomplished, for the purpose of restoring federalism and the founders ideal, which can only, in my view be gained by returning to what I equate to the first incorrect equation of a math problem, wherein every subsequent equation is made incorrect by the first, and the answer will never come out correct, (The answer being liberty).
> The first incorrect equation was the adoption of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, and the only middle ground as the speaker was suggesting be found, is in my view a return to the Articles, which is absent of the two party duopoly that divides and conquers. In this way the union of States would be restored, federalism would be restored along with a chance at getting the end result correct, which is liberty.
> Yet so many are to base to understand the complexity of our cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although I don't really agree with your view about the legality of secession,  I appreciate you actually taking the time to review the video.    I've devoted a lot of time and energy into researching Civil War history, and I consider myself a pretty solid amateur authority on the Confederacy.  Happy to discuss the subject with you any time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My point remains that for there to be a violation of a law, there must first be a law established to violate. There was, nor is a law stating that secession was or is an unlawful or illegal act.
> The only thing remotely related comes from the Articles of Confederation which all claim were replaced. If they were replaced then any and all mention of perpetual was replaced as well.
> If the perpetual clause was carried over, then it would require its enumeration in the new CONstitution; if perpetuity was carried over without enumeration, then what other portions were carried over without enumeration that one may use at a given time to ones advantage?
> Besides even all of that, if the union was still to be perpetual, then the 17th amendment to the U.S. CONstitution ended the perpetual union between the States by removing the States from the equation.
> The States governments which form each State, are no longer participants in the central body of "the United States" hence there is no longer a union. The purpose of the central body was to unite the States through a collective body called a congress. Under the Articles the congress only consisted of State legislature appointed representatives, under the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, the State legislatures continued to be participants in the union between themselves through a congress containing State appointed Senators as their representatives, maintaining a federal system that existed under the Articles. An addition was made in the form of a national component wherein an addition to the congress was made in the form of a House of Representatives  which was made up of districts without regard to State affiliation, that body was/is made up of elected officials to represent the whole of the people, (this is the addition of the national component).
> Now was a result of the 17th amendment the State governments do not appoint representatives to represent the State governments, hence the States are no longer participants as the have no representation/no part in a union between States. Now only the people as a whole and the two corporately owned political party,s have representation, as the Senators through election instead of appointment, owe their allegiance political party of their affiliation rather than a State government that appointed them and could re-call them in the event of poor representation of the government which appointed them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would never claim to be any kind of expert on Constitutional questions, so you won't hear me argue from a technically legal standpoint.   My interests are primary military history and the political and cultural history surrounding that.
> However, I can share my personal views about secession.   It's a question that seems to have some renewed interest in a modern context, so that's how I'm frame the opinion.
> 
> If a group of citizens in Dog Patch, Idaho managed to gain political control over the state government, and subsequently proclaim Idaho to be a separate and sovereign nation;  I would say to them:  You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country too.   Just because some corrupt and self serving politicians get a bug up their asses, doesn't give them the right to tear apart a nation.  They didn't build it, they stand on the shoulders of those who did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> M
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal,
> Thank you for sharing.
> I am about 3/4ths of the way through the presentation, but it is very late, and I am very tired after a long day, therefore I will finish it tomorrow. A few of things I would point out at this early point.....
> One is that he is correct in that most peoples understanding is base and fixed, and will not listen to the more complex, (These are my words, as I am paraphrasing), I witness this in every discussion, and it sure has been a mainstay in this thread.
> Another observation at this point is that the legalities of secession have not been addressed, aside from his reference to rebellion against the federal government, though he was using it as an example: I would state that there must first be a law in place for there to be a rebellion as rebellion is defined as "Insurrection against lawful authority" hence for their to be a lawful authority, there must first be a law in place.
> I personally have never claimed that one of, if not the major issue for the Southern States was slavery, however, as awful as slavery was, slavery was of no consequence to the legality of secession, and yet it has always been of interest to me, that at the same time the U.S. was supposedly fighting to free the slaves, it was also exterminating the Native American Indian, and forcing survivors into internment camps called reservations.
> There is no moral high ground held by either side concerning the treatment of our fellow man.
> While I had ancestors who fought for our Confederacy, such is not of great interest to me aside from being in aw of what they were able to accomplish, but I do not live vicariously through them as I witnessed in the majority of our people.
> My interest is only in defending the legality of secession and the fact that it was accomplished, for the purpose of restoring federalism and the founders ideal, which can only, in my view be gained by returning to what I equate to the first incorrect equation of a math problem, wherein every subsequent equation is made incorrect by the first, and the answer will never come out correct, (The answer being liberty).
> The first incorrect equation was the adoption of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, and the only middle ground as the speaker was suggesting be found, is in my view a return to the Articles, which is absent of the two party duopoly that divides and conquers. In this way the union of States would be restored, federalism would be restored along with a chance at getting the end result correct, which is liberty.
> Yet so many are to base to understand the complexity of our cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Although I don't really agree with your view about the legality of secession,  I appreciate you actually taking the time to review the video.    I've devoted a lot of time and energy into researching Civil War history, and I consider myself a pretty solid amateur authority on the Confederacy.  Happy to discuss the subject with you any time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My point remains that for there to be a violation of a law, there must first be a law established to violate. There was, nor is a law stating that secession was or is an unlawful or illegal act.
> The only thing remotely related comes from the Articles of Confederation which all claim were replaced. If they were replaced then any and all mention of perpetual was replaced as well.
> If the perpetual clause was carried over, then it would require its enumeration in the new CONstitution; if perpetuity was carried over without enumeration, then what other portions were carried over without enumeration that one may use at a given time to ones advantage?
> Besides even all of that, if the union was still to be perpetual, then the 17th amendment to the U.S. CONstitution ended the perpetual union between the States by removing the States from the equation.
> The States governments which form each State, are no longer participants in the central body of "the United States" hence there is no longer a union. The purpose of the central body was to unite the States through a collective body called a congress. Under the Articles the congress only consisted of State legislature appointed representatives, under the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, the State legislatures continued to be participants in the union between themselves through a congress containing State appointed Senators as their representatives, maintaining a federal system that existed under the Articles. An addition was made in the form of a national component wherein an addition to the congress was made in the form of a House of Representatives  which was made up of districts without regard to State affiliation, that body was/is made up of elected officials to represent the whole of the people, (this is the addition of the national component).
> Now was a result of the 17th amendment the State governments do not appoint representatives to represent the State governments, hence the States are no longer participants as the have no representation/no part in a union between States. Now only the people as a whole and the two corporately owned political party,s have representation, as the Senators through election instead of appointment, owe their allegiance political party of their affiliation rather than a State government that appointed them and could re-call them in the event of poor representation of the government which appointed them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would never claim to be any kind of expert on Constitutional questions, so you won't hear me argue from a technically legal standpoint.   My interests are primary military history and the political and cultural history surrounding that.
> However, I can share my personal views about secession.   It's a question that seems to have some renewed interest in a modern context, so that's how I'm frame the opinion.
> 
> If a group of citizens in Dog Patch, Idaho managed to gain political control over the state government, and subsequently proclaim Idaho to be a separate and sovereign nation;  I would say to them:  You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country too.   Just because some corrupt and self serving politicians get a bug up their asses, doesn't give them the right to tear apart a nation.  They didn't build it, they stand on the shoulders of those who did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is my response to not, simply you, but many who have made a similar statement......
> You are looking at the union through a distorted lens.
> You statement that......
> *"You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country
> too"*
> _This was before the Lincoln's war of rebellion, and the subsequient 17th amendment as a result thereof, (A UNION OF STATES) ......
> As Alexander Hamilton stated in "The Federalist #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. "*
> Point being is that there was *NOT* suppose to be a consolidation into one complete national sovereignty, yet you view Idaho as YOURS. I never view another State as mine, I view it as a member State in a union/confederacy of States, just as one would view those States united under the United Nations Charter. A Constitution after all is a Charter, between States, it is a treaty between States, it is a compact between States.
> Why do you think that another State belongs to you?
> Here are a few SCOTUS opinions concerning this municipal jurisdiction that so many think that they hold over a State wherein they do not reside, as if.....
> *"You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country
> too"*
> Pollard’s Lessee v Hagan, that for the United States, (The States collectively in union) to hold municipal jurisdiction within a State that …….
> *“Such a power is not only repugnant to the Constitution, but it is inconsistent with the spirit and intention of the deeds of cession.”
> “Then to Alabama belong the navigable waters, and soils under them, in controversy in this case, subject to the rights surrendered by the Constitution to the United States, and no compact that might be made between her and the United States could diminish or enlarge these rights.”*
> 
> The United States never held municipal jurisdiction within a State once a State is formed and admitted to the union: *"the soil, the shores, the waters, and land beneath the waters belong to the State respectively:"*
> We see here that Idaho does NOT belong to you as in.....
> _*"You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country
> too"
> Also in Harcourt v. Gaillard, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 523, 526, 527 (1827), we find that the U.S. Court stated:
> 
> “There was no territory within the United States that was claimed in any other right than that of some one of the confederated states; therefore, there could be no acquisition of territory made by the United States distinct from, or independent of some one of the states.
> 
> “Each declared itself sovereign and independent, according to the limits of its territory.
> 
> “[T]he soil and sovereignty within their acknowledged limits were as much theirs at the declaration of independence as at this hour.”
> 
> Also in M’Ilvaine v. Coxe’s Lessee, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 209, 212 (1808), where it was held:
> 
> “This opinion is predicated upon a principle which is believed to be undeniable, that the several states which composed this Union, so far at least as regarded their municipal regulations, became entitled, from the time when they declared themselves independent, to all the rights and powers of sovereign states, and that they did not derive them from concessions made by the British king. The treaty of peace contains a recognition of their independence, not a grant of it. From hence it results, that the laws of the several state governments were the laws of sovereign states, and as such were obligatory upon the people of such state, from the time they were enacted.”
> 
> Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17 of the U.S. Constitution, which read as follows:
> 
> “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.”
> Here we see that any jurisdiction of the States as a collective in government formation has NO JURISDICTION OUTSIDE OF THE TEN MILES SQUARE THAT IS THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS NON-EXISTENT EXCEPT WITHIN A U.S. FORT, AN ARSENAL, A U.S. GOVERNMENT BUILDING, MAGAZINE, OR DOCK YARD, THUS ANY JURISDICTION BEYOND THAT IS THAT OF EACH STATE RESPECTIVELY/INDIVIDUALLY.*_
> What I am pointing out here is that this was intended to be a union of States, not a consolidation of them, I as a Tennessean do not own New YORK, Idaho or any other State, I cannot claim ...
> _*"You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country
> too"*_
> *They are suppose to be separate States united, NOT CONSOLIDATED.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> natstew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> InfoQuest said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (1)  Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Supreme Court ruled on this after the Civil War. It said there was no secession because the Constitution did not define a right to secede.
> 
> Therefore citizens of Texas and other Confederate states were US citizens before, during and after the War between the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that's true, why did the Confederate States have to be re-admitted to the Union, and re-write their State Constitutions to be re- admitted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Confederate States were NOT re-admitted, this was an illusion. The Confederate States were replaces....
> A State by definition is *"A MODE OF GOVERNMENT"
> Example of how the Confederate States were replaced, therefore WERE NOT RE-ADMITTED.....
> Isham (I'-sam) G. Harris, of Memphis, was elected governor of Tennessee in 1857, and again in 1859, both times by large majorities.
> On February 22 upon the invasion and occupation of Tennessee Grant declared martial law
> 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 Confederate 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.
> 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 vercomes 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]
> 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.
> 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).
> Governor Harris was a lame duck governor at the time of the invasion of Tennessee, Robert Caruthers was governor elect, hence the dejure elected governor of Tennessee, yet was NOT allowed to take office.....
> William Gannaway Brownlow was elected Governor on March 4.
> This election, was limited to only pro-Unionists.
> It was under this appointed government/State that this NEW TENNESSEE was admitted, not the de jure Confederate State of Tennessee.
> If The Confederate State of Tennessee had been re-admitted, then that would indicate that secession had been accomplished which would NOT be possible if secession was indeed illegal.
> So one must answer the question....
> Was the Confederate State of Tennessee "re-admitted" or replaced by another State?
> 
> 
> New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm much more familiar with the battles of Franklin, Shiloh, Stones River and Nashville.   I've actually made quite a study of the campaigns in Tennessee.  That aside, my answer to your argument is:  you don't own Tennessee any more than I do.   In any case the proponents of secession have an extremely limited scope and circumstance to their argument, more about fine legal distinctions rather than any actual principles.   If you believe secession is an absolute right based on some principle, then you should have no problem when the result is West Virginia.
Click to expand...

The principle cannot ignore the law, While the creation of West Virginia may be based in our a Declaration of Independence, to which I agree, a law was in place in Both Constitutions that.....
*New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.*
*Now, just as in the ratification of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, concerning Article XIII of the 1781 Constitution, the law in place must be repealed following the proper prescribed procedure before any further action can take place concerning that law.
In other words, the law must be followed, amended, or repealed to allow the principle to follow through, otherwise it becomes an act of rebellion to the law.
Again however, there was no law concerning secession, hence no law existed to be amended, or repealed.
Concerning The battles in Tennessee, my ancestors were involved, one of which fought in the 4th Tennessee cavalry in McClemores unit under Starnes and Forrest.\, which were involved in many battles, the most amazing to me was the pursuit of Streights raiders. My great great grandfather was among the 4th Tennessee escort when our President was abducted by the invaders.
This however is not my motivation or any blind dedication to the restoration cause, as the restorations end is at the restoration of a wholly federal system, of the Articles of Confederation, a true Confederacy of States as was intended by the founders.*


----------



## Liminal

James Everett said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although I don't really agree with your view about the legality of secession,  I appreciate you actually taking the time to review the video.    I've devoted a lot of time and energy into researching Civil War history, and I consider myself a pretty solid amateur authority on the Confederacy.  Happy to discuss the subject with you any time.
> 
> 
> 
> My point remains that for there to be a violation of a law, there must first be a law established to violate. There was, nor is a law stating that secession was or is an unlawful or illegal act.
> The only thing remotely related comes from the Articles of Confederation which all claim were replaced. If they were replaced then any and all mention of perpetual was replaced as well.
> If the perpetual clause was carried over, then it would require its enumeration in the new CONstitution; if perpetuity was carried over without enumeration, then what other portions were carried over without enumeration that one may use at a given time to ones advantage?
> Besides even all of that, if the union was still to be perpetual, then the 17th amendment to the U.S. CONstitution ended the perpetual union between the States by removing the States from the equation.
> The States governments which form each State, are no longer participants in the central body of "the United States" hence there is no longer a union. The purpose of the central body was to unite the States through a collective body called a congress. Under the Articles the congress only consisted of State legislature appointed representatives, under the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, the State legislatures continued to be participants in the union between themselves through a congress containing State appointed Senators as their representatives, maintaining a federal system that existed under the Articles. An addition was made in the form of a national component wherein an addition to the congress was made in the form of a House of Representatives  which was made up of districts without regard to State affiliation, that body was/is made up of elected officials to represent the whole of the people, (this is the addition of the national component).
> Now was a result of the 17th amendment the State governments do not appoint representatives to represent the State governments, hence the States are no longer participants as the have no representation/no part in a union between States. Now only the people as a whole and the two corporately owned political party,s have representation, as the Senators through election instead of appointment, owe their allegiance political party of their affiliation rather than a State government that appointed them and could re-call them in the event of poor representation of the government which appointed them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would never claim to be any kind of expert on Constitutional questions, so you won't hear me argue from a technically legal standpoint.   My interests are primary military history and the political and cultural history surrounding that.
> However, I can share my personal views about secession.   It's a question that seems to have some renewed interest in a modern context, so that's how I'm frame the opinion.
> 
> If a group of citizens in Dog Patch, Idaho managed to gain political control over the state government, and subsequently proclaim Idaho to be a separate and sovereign nation;  I would say to them:  You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country too.   Just because some corrupt and self serving politicians get a bug up their asses, doesn't give them the right to tear apart a nation.  They didn't build it, they stand on the shoulders of those who did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> M
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although I don't really agree with your view about the legality of secession,  I appreciate you actually taking the time to review the video.    I've devoted a lot of time and energy into researching Civil War history, and I consider myself a pretty solid amateur authority on the Confederacy.  Happy to discuss the subject with you any time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My point remains that for there to be a violation of a law, there must first be a law established to violate. There was, nor is a law stating that secession was or is an unlawful or illegal act.
> The only thing remotely related comes from the Articles of Confederation which all claim were replaced. If they were replaced then any and all mention of perpetual was replaced as well.
> If the perpetual clause was carried over, then it would require its enumeration in the new CONstitution; if perpetuity was carried over without enumeration, then what other portions were carried over without enumeration that one may use at a given time to ones advantage?
> Besides even all of that, if the union was still to be perpetual, then the 17th amendment to the U.S. CONstitution ended the perpetual union between the States by removing the States from the equation.
> The States governments which form each State, are no longer participants in the central body of "the United States" hence there is no longer a union. The purpose of the central body was to unite the States through a collective body called a congress. Under the Articles the congress only consisted of State legislature appointed representatives, under the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, the State legislatures continued to be participants in the union between themselves through a congress containing State appointed Senators as their representatives, maintaining a federal system that existed under the Articles. An addition was made in the form of a national component wherein an addition to the congress was made in the form of a House of Representatives  which was made up of districts without regard to State affiliation, that body was/is made up of elected officials to represent the whole of the people, (this is the addition of the national component).
> Now was a result of the 17th amendment the State governments do not appoint representatives to represent the State governments, hence the States are no longer participants as the have no representation/no part in a union between States. Now only the people as a whole and the two corporately owned political party,s have representation, as the Senators through election instead of appointment, owe their allegiance political party of their affiliation rather than a State government that appointed them and could re-call them in the event of poor representation of the government which appointed them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would never claim to be any kind of expert on Constitutional questions, so you won't hear me argue from a technically legal standpoint.   My interests are primary military history and the political and cultural history surrounding that.
> However, I can share my personal views about secession.   It's a question that seems to have some renewed interest in a modern context, so that's how I'm frame the opinion.
> 
> If a group of citizens in Dog Patch, Idaho managed to gain political control over the state government, and subsequently proclaim Idaho to be a separate and sovereign nation;  I would say to them:  You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country too.   Just because some corrupt and self serving politicians get a bug up their asses, doesn't give them the right to tear apart a nation.  They didn't build it, they stand on the shoulders of those who did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is my response to not, simply you, but many who have made a similar statement......
> You are looking at the union through a distorted lens.
> You statement that......
> *"You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country
> too"*
> _This was before the Lincoln's war of rebellion, and the subsequient 17th amendment as a result thereof, (A UNION OF STATES) ......
> As Alexander Hamilton stated in "The Federalist #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. "*
> Point being is that there was *NOT* suppose to be a consolidation into one complete national sovereignty, yet you view Idaho as YOURS. I never view another State as mine, I view it as a member State in a union/confederacy of States, just as one would view those States united under the United Nations Charter. A Constitution after all is a Charter, between States, it is a treaty between States, it is a compact between States.
> Why do you think that another State belongs to you?
> Here are a few SCOTUS opinions concerning this municipal jurisdiction that so many think that they hold over a State wherein they do not reside, as if.....
> *"You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country
> too"*
> Pollard’s Lessee v Hagan, that for the United States, (The States collectively in union) to hold municipal jurisdiction within a State that …….
> *“Such a power is not only repugnant to the Constitution, but it is inconsistent with the spirit and intention of the deeds of cession.”
> “Then to Alabama belong the navigable waters, and soils under them, in controversy in this case, subject to the rights surrendered by the Constitution to the United States, and no compact that might be made between her and the United States could diminish or enlarge these rights.”*
> 
> The United States never held municipal jurisdiction within a State once a State is formed and admitted to the union: *"the soil, the shores, the waters, and land beneath the waters belong to the State respectively:"*
> We see here that Idaho does NOT belong to you as in.....
> _*"You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country
> too"
> Also in Harcourt v. Gaillard, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 523, 526, 527 (1827), we find that the U.S. Court stated:
> 
> “There was no territory within the United States that was claimed in any other right than that of some one of the confederated states; therefore, there could be no acquisition of territory made by the United States distinct from, or independent of some one of the states.
> 
> “Each declared itself sovereign and independent, according to the limits of its territory.
> 
> “[T]he soil and sovereignty within their acknowledged limits were as much theirs at the declaration of independence as at this hour.”
> 
> Also in M’Ilvaine v. Coxe’s Lessee, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 209, 212 (1808), where it was held:
> 
> “This opinion is predicated upon a principle which is believed to be undeniable, that the several states which composed this Union, so far at least as regarded their municipal regulations, became entitled, from the time when they declared themselves independent, to all the rights and powers of sovereign states, and that they did not derive them from concessions made by the British king. The treaty of peace contains a recognition of their independence, not a grant of it. From hence it results, that the laws of the several state governments were the laws of sovereign states, and as such were obligatory upon the people of such state, from the time they were enacted.”
> 
> Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17 of the U.S. Constitution, which read as follows:
> 
> “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.”
> Here we see that any jurisdiction of the States as a collective in government formation has NO JURISDICTION OUTSIDE OF THE TEN MILES SQUARE THAT IS THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS NON-EXISTENT EXCEPT WITHIN A U.S. FORT, AN ARSENAL, A U.S. GOVERNMENT BUILDING, MAGAZINE, OR DOCK YARD, THUS ANY JURISDICTION BEYOND THAT IS THAT OF EACH STATE RESPECTIVELY/INDIVIDUALLY.*_
> What I am pointing out here is that this was intended to be a union of States, not a consolidation of them, I as a Tennessean do not own New YORK, Idaho or any other State, I cannot claim ...
> _*"You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country
> too"*_
> *They are suppose to be separate States united, NOT CONSOLIDATED.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> natstew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> InfoQuest said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (1)  Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Supreme Court ruled on this after the Civil War. It said there was no secession because the Constitution did not define a right to secede.
> 
> Therefore citizens of Texas and other Confederate states were US citizens before, during and after the War between the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that's true, why did the Confederate States have to be re-admitted to the Union, and re-write their State Constitutions to be re- admitted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Confederate States were NOT re-admitted, this was an illusion. The Confederate States were replaces....
> A State by definition is *"A MODE OF GOVERNMENT"
> Example of how the Confederate States were replaced, therefore WERE NOT RE-ADMITTED.....
> Isham (I'-sam) G. Harris, of Memphis, was elected governor of Tennessee in 1857, and again in 1859, both times by large majorities.
> On February 22 upon the invasion and occupation of Tennessee Grant declared martial law
> 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 Confederate 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.
> 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 vercomes 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]
> 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.
> 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).
> Governor Harris was a lame duck governor at the time of the invasion of Tennessee, Robert Caruthers was governor elect, hence the dejure elected governor of Tennessee, yet was NOT allowed to take office.....
> William Gannaway Brownlow was elected Governor on March 4.
> This election, was limited to only pro-Unionists.
> It was under this appointed government/State that this NEW TENNESSEE was admitted, not the de jure Confederate State of Tennessee.
> If The Confederate State of Tennessee had been re-admitted, then that would indicate that secession had been accomplished which would NOT be possible if secession was indeed illegal.
> So one must answer the question....
> Was the Confederate State of Tennessee "re-admitted" or replaced by another State?
> 
> 
> New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm much more familiar with the battles of Franklin, Shiloh, Stones River and Nashville.   I've actually made quite a study of the campaigns in Tennessee.  That aside, my answer to your argument is:  you don't own Tennessee any more than I do.   In any case the proponents of secession have an extremely limited scope and circumstance to their argument, more about fine legal distinctions rather than any actual principles.   If you believe secession is an absolute right based on some principle, then you should have no problem when the result is West Virginia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The principle cannot ignore the law, While the creation of West Virginia may be based in our a Declaration of Independence, to which I agree, a law was in place in Both Constitutions that.....
> *New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
> Now, just as in the ratification of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, concerning Article XIII of the 1781 Constitution, the law in place must be repealed following the proper prescribed procedure before any further action can take place concerning that law.
> In other words, the law must be followed, amended, or repealed to allow the principle to follow through, otherwise it becomes an act of rebellion to the law.
> Again however, there was no law concerning secession, hence no law existed to be amended, or repealed.
> Concerning The battles in Tennessee, my ancestors were involved, one of which fought in the 4th Tennessee cavalry in McClemores unit under Starnes and Forrest.\, which were involved in many battles, the most amazing to me was the pursuit of Streights raiders. My great great grandfather was among the 4th Tennessee escort when our President was abducted by the invaders.
> This however is not my motivation or any blind dedication to the restoration cause, as the restorations end is at the restoration of a wholly federal system, of the Articles of Confederation, a true Confederacy of States as was intended by the founders.*
Click to expand...


Hardly that, the secession of West Virginia happened because, unlike other states, Virginia decided the question by having county based referendums.   Had that happened in Tennessee,  several eastern counties would have seceded from Tennessee.


----------



## James Everett

Liminal said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point remains that for there to be a violation of a law, there must first be a law established to violate. There was, nor is a law stating that secession was or is an unlawful or illegal act.
> The only thing remotely related comes from the Articles of Confederation which all claim were replaced. If they were replaced then any and all mention of perpetual was replaced as well.
> If the perpetual clause was carried over, then it would require its enumeration in the new CONstitution; if perpetuity was carried over without enumeration, then what other portions were carried over without enumeration that one may use at a given time to ones advantage?
> Besides even all of that, if the union was still to be perpetual, then the 17th amendment to the U.S. CONstitution ended the perpetual union between the States by removing the States from the equation.
> The States governments which form each State, are no longer participants in the central body of "the United States" hence there is no longer a union. The purpose of the central body was to unite the States through a collective body called a congress. Under the Articles the congress only consisted of State legislature appointed representatives, under the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, the State legislatures continued to be participants in the union between themselves through a congress containing State appointed Senators as their representatives, maintaining a federal system that existed under the Articles. An addition was made in the form of a national component wherein an addition to the congress was made in the form of a House of Representatives  which was made up of districts without regard to State affiliation, that body was/is made up of elected officials to represent the whole of the people, (this is the addition of the national component).
> Now was a result of the 17th amendment the State governments do not appoint representatives to represent the State governments, hence the States are no longer participants as the have no representation/no part in a union between States. Now only the people as a whole and the two corporately owned political party,s have representation, as the Senators through election instead of appointment, owe their allegiance political party of their affiliation rather than a State government that appointed them and could re-call them in the event of poor representation of the government which appointed them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would never claim to be any kind of expert on Constitutional questions, so you won't hear me argue from a technically legal standpoint.   My interests are primary military history and the political and cultural history surrounding that.
> However, I can share my personal views about secession.   It's a question that seems to have some renewed interest in a modern context, so that's how I'm frame the opinion.
> 
> If a group of citizens in Dog Patch, Idaho managed to gain political control over the state government, and subsequently proclaim Idaho to be a separate and sovereign nation;  I would say to them:  You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country too.   Just because some corrupt and self serving politicians get a bug up their asses, doesn't give them the right to tear apart a nation.  They didn't build it, they stand on the shoulders of those who did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> M
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point remains that for there to be a violation of a law, there must first be a law established to violate. There was, nor is a law stating that secession was or is an unlawful or illegal act.
> The only thing remotely related comes from the Articles of Confederation which all claim were replaced. If they were replaced then any and all mention of perpetual was replaced as well.
> If the perpetual clause was carried over, then it would require its enumeration in the new CONstitution; if perpetuity was carried over without enumeration, then what other portions were carried over without enumeration that one may use at a given time to ones advantage?
> Besides even all of that, if the union was still to be perpetual, then the 17th amendment to the U.S. CONstitution ended the perpetual union between the States by removing the States from the equation.
> The States governments which form each State, are no longer participants in the central body of "the United States" hence there is no longer a union. The purpose of the central body was to unite the States through a collective body called a congress. Under the Articles the congress only consisted of State legislature appointed representatives, under the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, the State legislatures continued to be participants in the union between themselves through a congress containing State appointed Senators as their representatives, maintaining a federal system that existed under the Articles. An addition was made in the form of a national component wherein an addition to the congress was made in the form of a House of Representatives  which was made up of districts without regard to State affiliation, that body was/is made up of elected officials to represent the whole of the people, (this is the addition of the national component).
> Now was a result of the 17th amendment the State governments do not appoint representatives to represent the State governments, hence the States are no longer participants as the have no representation/no part in a union between States. Now only the people as a whole and the two corporately owned political party,s have representation, as the Senators through election instead of appointment, owe their allegiance political party of their affiliation rather than a State government that appointed them and could re-call them in the event of poor representation of the government which appointed them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would never claim to be any kind of expert on Constitutional questions, so you won't hear me argue from a technically legal standpoint.   My interests are primary military history and the political and cultural history surrounding that.
> However, I can share my personal views about secession.   It's a question that seems to have some renewed interest in a modern context, so that's how I'm frame the opinion.
> 
> If a group of citizens in Dog Patch, Idaho managed to gain political control over the state government, and subsequently proclaim Idaho to be a separate and sovereign nation;  I would say to them:  You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country too.   Just because some corrupt and self serving politicians get a bug up their asses, doesn't give them the right to tear apart a nation.  They didn't build it, they stand on the shoulders of those who did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is my response to not, simply you, but many who have made a similar statement......
> You are looking at the union through a distorted lens.
> You statement that......
> *"You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country
> too"*
> _This was before the Lincoln's war of rebellion, and the subsequient 17th amendment as a result thereof, (A UNION OF STATES) ......
> As Alexander Hamilton stated in "The Federalist #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. "*
> Point being is that there was *NOT* suppose to be a consolidation into one complete national sovereignty, yet you view Idaho as YOURS. I never view another State as mine, I view it as a member State in a union/confederacy of States, just as one would view those States united under the United Nations Charter. A Constitution after all is a Charter, between States, it is a treaty between States, it is a compact between States.
> Why do you think that another State belongs to you?
> Here are a few SCOTUS opinions concerning this municipal jurisdiction that so many think that they hold over a State wherein they do not reside, as if.....
> *"You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country
> too"*
> Pollard’s Lessee v Hagan, that for the United States, (The States collectively in union) to hold municipal jurisdiction within a State that …….
> *“Such a power is not only repugnant to the Constitution, but it is inconsistent with the spirit and intention of the deeds of cession.”
> “Then to Alabama belong the navigable waters, and soils under them, in controversy in this case, subject to the rights surrendered by the Constitution to the United States, and no compact that might be made between her and the United States could diminish or enlarge these rights.”*
> 
> The United States never held municipal jurisdiction within a State once a State is formed and admitted to the union: *"the soil, the shores, the waters, and land beneath the waters belong to the State respectively:"*
> We see here that Idaho does NOT belong to you as in.....
> _*"You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country
> too"
> Also in Harcourt v. Gaillard, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 523, 526, 527 (1827), we find that the U.S. Court stated:
> 
> “There was no territory within the United States that was claimed in any other right than that of some one of the confederated states; therefore, there could be no acquisition of territory made by the United States distinct from, or independent of some one of the states.
> 
> “Each declared itself sovereign and independent, according to the limits of its territory.
> 
> “[T]he soil and sovereignty within their acknowledged limits were as much theirs at the declaration of independence as at this hour.”
> 
> Also in M’Ilvaine v. Coxe’s Lessee, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 209, 212 (1808), where it was held:
> 
> “This opinion is predicated upon a principle which is believed to be undeniable, that the several states which composed this Union, so far at least as regarded their municipal regulations, became entitled, from the time when they declared themselves independent, to all the rights and powers of sovereign states, and that they did not derive them from concessions made by the British king. The treaty of peace contains a recognition of their independence, not a grant of it. From hence it results, that the laws of the several state governments were the laws of sovereign states, and as such were obligatory upon the people of such state, from the time they were enacted.”
> 
> Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17 of the U.S. Constitution, which read as follows:
> 
> “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.”
> Here we see that any jurisdiction of the States as a collective in government formation has NO JURISDICTION OUTSIDE OF THE TEN MILES SQUARE THAT IS THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS NON-EXISTENT EXCEPT WITHIN A U.S. FORT, AN ARSENAL, A U.S. GOVERNMENT BUILDING, MAGAZINE, OR DOCK YARD, THUS ANY JURISDICTION BEYOND THAT IS THAT OF EACH STATE RESPECTIVELY/INDIVIDUALLY.*_
> What I am pointing out here is that this was intended to be a union of States, not a consolidation of them, I as a Tennessean do not own New YORK, Idaho or any other State, I cannot claim ...
> _*"You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country
> too"*_
> *They are suppose to be separate States united, NOT CONSOLIDATED.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> natstew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> InfoQuest said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court ruled on this after the Civil War. It said there was no secession because the Constitution did not define a right to secede.
> 
> Therefore citizens of Texas and other Confederate states were US citizens before, during and after the War between the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that's true, why did the Confederate States have to be re-admitted to the Union, and re-write their State Constitutions to be re- admitted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Confederate States were NOT re-admitted, this was an illusion. The Confederate States were replaces....
> A State by definition is *"A MODE OF GOVERNMENT"
> Example of how the Confederate States were replaced, therefore WERE NOT RE-ADMITTED.....
> Isham (I'-sam) G. Harris, of Memphis, was elected governor of Tennessee in 1857, and again in 1859, both times by large majorities.
> On February 22 upon the invasion and occupation of Tennessee Grant declared martial law
> 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 Confederate 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.
> 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 vercomes 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]
> 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.
> 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).
> Governor Harris was a lame duck governor at the time of the invasion of Tennessee, Robert Caruthers was governor elect, hence the dejure elected governor of Tennessee, yet was NOT allowed to take office.....
> William Gannaway Brownlow was elected Governor on March 4.
> This election, was limited to only pro-Unionists.
> It was under this appointed government/State that this NEW TENNESSEE was admitted, not the de jure Confederate State of Tennessee.
> If The Confederate State of Tennessee had been re-admitted, then that would indicate that secession had been accomplished which would NOT be possible if secession was indeed illegal.
> So one must answer the question....
> Was the Confederate State of Tennessee "re-admitted" or replaced by another State?
> 
> 
> New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm much more familiar with the battles of Franklin, Shiloh, Stones River and Nashville.   I've actually made quite a study of the campaigns in Tennessee.  That aside, my answer to your argument is:  you don't own Tennessee any more than I do.   In any case the proponents of secession have an extremely limited scope and circumstance to their argument, more about fine legal distinctions rather than any actual principles.   If you believe secession is an absolute right based on some principle, then you should have no problem when the result is West Virginia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The principle cannot ignore the law, While the creation of West Virginia may be based in our a Declaration of Independence, to which I agree, a law was in place in Both Constitutions that.....
> *New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
> Now, just as in the ratification of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, concerning Article XIII of the 1781 Constitution, the law in place must be repealed following the proper prescribed procedure before any further action can take place concerning that law.
> In other words, the law must be followed, amended, or repealed to allow the principle to follow through, otherwise it becomes an act of rebellion to the law.
> Again however, there was no law concerning secession, hence no law existed to be amended, or repealed.
> Concerning The battles in Tennessee, my ancestors were involved, one of which fought in the 4th Tennessee cavalry in McClemores unit under Starnes and Forrest.\, which were involved in many battles, the most amazing to me was the pursuit of Streights raiders. My great great grandfather was among the 4th Tennessee escort when our President was abducted by the invaders.
> This however is not my motivation or any blind dedication to the restoration cause, as the restorations end is at the restoration of a wholly federal system, of the Articles of Confederation, a true Confederacy of States as was intended by the founders.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hardly that, the secession of West Virginia happened because, unlike other states, Virginia decided the question by having county based referendums.   Had that happened in Tennessee,  several eastern counties would have seceded from Tennessee.
Click to expand...

Again what was the law concerning a State being formed within the Jurisdiction of another?
*New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.*
*Now was the law fulfilled?
Did the Confederate States Congress CONSENT to the formation of West Virginia within The State of Virginia?
Again the Constitution would require amending to allow such to occur without the consent of congress. While I may agree in principle the law is the law.
I must be honest here. I was unaware that Virginia allowed county referendum on the subject, and clearly I need to further research the issue, however the CSA Constitution is as clear as the U.S. Constitution concerning a new State being formed within the jurisdiction of another. 
*


----------



## Liminal

James Everett said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would never claim to be any kind of expert on Constitutional questions, so you won't hear me argue from a technically legal standpoint.   My interests are primary military history and the political and cultural history surrounding that.
> However, I can share my personal views about secession.   It's a question that seems to have some renewed interest in a modern context, so that's how I'm frame the opinion.
> 
> If a group of citizens in Dog Patch, Idaho managed to gain political control over the state government, and subsequently proclaim Idaho to be a separate and sovereign nation;  I would say to them:  You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country too.   Just because some corrupt and self serving politicians get a bug up their asses, doesn't give them the right to tear apart a nation.  They didn't build it, they stand on the shoulders of those who did.
> 
> 
> 
> M
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would never claim to be any kind of expert on Constitutional questions, so you won't hear me argue from a technically legal standpoint.   My interests are primary military history and the political and cultural history surrounding that.
> However, I can share my personal views about secession.   It's a question that seems to have some renewed interest in a modern context, so that's how I'm frame the opinion.
> 
> If a group of citizens in Dog Patch, Idaho managed to gain political control over the state government, and subsequently proclaim Idaho to be a separate and sovereign nation;  I would say to them:  You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country too.   Just because some corrupt and self serving politicians get a bug up their asses, doesn't give them the right to tear apart a nation.  They didn't build it, they stand on the shoulders of those who did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is my response to not, simply you, but many who have made a similar statement......
> You are looking at the union through a distorted lens.
> You statement that......
> *"You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country
> too"*
> _This was before the Lincoln's war of rebellion, and the subsequient 17th amendment as a result thereof, (A UNION OF STATES) ......
> As Alexander Hamilton stated in "The Federalist #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. "*
> Point being is that there was *NOT* suppose to be a consolidation into one complete national sovereignty, yet you view Idaho as YOURS. I never view another State as mine, I view it as a member State in a union/confederacy of States, just as one would view those States united under the United Nations Charter. A Constitution after all is a Charter, between States, it is a treaty between States, it is a compact between States.
> Why do you think that another State belongs to you?
> Here are a few SCOTUS opinions concerning this municipal jurisdiction that so many think that they hold over a State wherein they do not reside, as if.....
> *"You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country
> too"*
> Pollard’s Lessee v Hagan, that for the United States, (The States collectively in union) to hold municipal jurisdiction within a State that …….
> *“Such a power is not only repugnant to the Constitution, but it is inconsistent with the spirit and intention of the deeds of cession.”
> “Then to Alabama belong the navigable waters, and soils under them, in controversy in this case, subject to the rights surrendered by the Constitution to the United States, and no compact that might be made between her and the United States could diminish or enlarge these rights.”*
> 
> The United States never held municipal jurisdiction within a State once a State is formed and admitted to the union: *"the soil, the shores, the waters, and land beneath the waters belong to the State respectively:"*
> We see here that Idaho does NOT belong to you as in.....
> _*"You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country
> too"
> Also in Harcourt v. Gaillard, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 523, 526, 527 (1827), we find that the U.S. Court stated:
> 
> “There was no territory within the United States that was claimed in any other right than that of some one of the confederated states; therefore, there could be no acquisition of territory made by the United States distinct from, or independent of some one of the states.
> 
> “Each declared itself sovereign and independent, according to the limits of its territory.
> 
> “[T]he soil and sovereignty within their acknowledged limits were as much theirs at the declaration of independence as at this hour.”
> 
> Also in M’Ilvaine v. Coxe’s Lessee, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 209, 212 (1808), where it was held:
> 
> “This opinion is predicated upon a principle which is believed to be undeniable, that the several states which composed this Union, so far at least as regarded their municipal regulations, became entitled, from the time when they declared themselves independent, to all the rights and powers of sovereign states, and that they did not derive them from concessions made by the British king. The treaty of peace contains a recognition of their independence, not a grant of it. From hence it results, that the laws of the several state governments were the laws of sovereign states, and as such were obligatory upon the people of such state, from the time they were enacted.”
> 
> Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17 of the U.S. Constitution, which read as follows:
> 
> “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.”
> Here we see that any jurisdiction of the States as a collective in government formation has NO JURISDICTION OUTSIDE OF THE TEN MILES SQUARE THAT IS THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS NON-EXISTENT EXCEPT WITHIN A U.S. FORT, AN ARSENAL, A U.S. GOVERNMENT BUILDING, MAGAZINE, OR DOCK YARD, THUS ANY JURISDICTION BEYOND THAT IS THAT OF EACH STATE RESPECTIVELY/INDIVIDUALLY.*_
> What I am pointing out here is that this was intended to be a union of States, not a consolidation of them, I as a Tennessean do not own New YORK, Idaho or any other State, I cannot claim ...
> _*"You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country
> too"*_
> *They are suppose to be separate States united, NOT CONSOLIDATED.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> natstew said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that's true, why did the Confederate States have to be re-admitted to the Union, and re-write their State Constitutions to be re- admitted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Confederate States were NOT re-admitted, this was an illusion. The Confederate States were replaces....
> A State by definition is *"A MODE OF GOVERNMENT"
> Example of how the Confederate States were replaced, therefore WERE NOT RE-ADMITTED.....
> Isham (I'-sam) G. Harris, of Memphis, was elected governor of Tennessee in 1857, and again in 1859, both times by large majorities.
> On February 22 upon the invasion and occupation of Tennessee Grant declared martial law
> 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 Confederate 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.
> 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 vercomes 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]
> 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.
> 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).
> Governor Harris was a lame duck governor at the time of the invasion of Tennessee, Robert Caruthers was governor elect, hence the dejure elected governor of Tennessee, yet was NOT allowed to take office.....
> William Gannaway Brownlow was elected Governor on March 4.
> This election, was limited to only pro-Unionists.
> It was under this appointed government/State that this NEW TENNESSEE was admitted, not the de jure Confederate State of Tennessee.
> If The Confederate State of Tennessee had been re-admitted, then that would indicate that secession had been accomplished which would NOT be possible if secession was indeed illegal.
> So one must answer the question....
> Was the Confederate State of Tennessee "re-admitted" or replaced by another State?
> 
> 
> New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm much more familiar with the battles of Franklin, Shiloh, Stones River and Nashville.   I've actually made quite a study of the campaigns in Tennessee.  That aside, my answer to your argument is:  you don't own Tennessee any more than I do.   In any case the proponents of secession have an extremely limited scope and circumstance to their argument, more about fine legal distinctions rather than any actual principles.   If you believe secession is an absolute right based on some principle, then you should have no problem when the result is West Virginia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The principle cannot ignore the law, While the creation of West Virginia may be based in our a Declaration of Independence, to which I agree, a law was in place in Both Constitutions that.....
> *New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
> Now, just as in the ratification of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, concerning Article XIII of the 1781 Constitution, the law in place must be repealed following the proper prescribed procedure before any further action can take place concerning that law.
> In other words, the law must be followed, amended, or repealed to allow the principle to follow through, otherwise it becomes an act of rebellion to the law.
> Again however, there was no law concerning secession, hence no law existed to be amended, or repealed.
> Concerning The battles in Tennessee, my ancestors were involved, one of which fought in the 4th Tennessee cavalry in McClemores unit under Starnes and Forrest.\, which were involved in many battles, the most amazing to me was the pursuit of Streights raiders. My great great grandfather was among the 4th Tennessee escort when our President was abducted by the invaders.
> This however is not my motivation or any blind dedication to the restoration cause, as the restorations end is at the restoration of a wholly federal system, of the Articles of Confederation, a true Confederacy of States as was intended by the founders.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hardly that, the secession of West Virginia happened because, unlike other states, Virginia decided the question by having county based referendums.   Had that happened in Tennessee,  several eastern counties would have seceded from Tennessee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again what was the law concerning a State being formed within the Jurisdiction of another?
> *New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
> Now was the law fulfilled?
> Did the Confederate States Congress CONSENT to the formation of West Virginia within The State of Virginia?
> Again the Constitution would require amending to allow such to occur without the consent of congress. While I may agree in principle the law is the law.
> I must be honest here. I was unaware that Virginia allowed county referendum on the subject, and clearly I need to further research the issue, however the CSA Constitution is as clear as the U.S. Constitution concerning a new State being formed within the jurisdiction of another. *
Click to expand...


I've noticed that many proponents of secession are very specific about the Constitution, until we get to the part where the Constitution expressly allows for secession and describes the legal mechanisms for doing so.  When we get to that point in the argument it starts to become a little vague.


----------



## natstew

Liminal said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> M
> Here is my response to not, simply you, but many who have made a similar statement......
> You are looking at the union through a distorted lens.
> You statement that......
> *"You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country
> too"*
> _This was before the Lincoln's war of rebellion, and the subsequient 17th amendment as a result thereof, (A UNION OF STATES) ......
> As Alexander Hamilton stated in "The Federalist #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. "*
> Point being is that there was *NOT* suppose to be a consolidation into one complete national sovereignty, yet you view Idaho as YOURS. I never view another State as mine, I view it as a member State in a union/confederacy of States, just as one would view those States united under the United Nations Charter. A Constitution after all is a Charter, between States, it is a treaty between States, it is a compact between States.
> Why do you think that another State belongs to you?
> Here are a few SCOTUS opinions concerning this municipal jurisdiction that so many think that they hold over a State wherein they do not reside, as if.....
> *"You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country
> too"*
> Pollard’s Lessee v Hagan, that for the United States, (The States collectively in union) to hold municipal jurisdiction within a State that …….
> *“Such a power is not only repugnant to the Constitution, but it is inconsistent with the spirit and intention of the deeds of cession.”
> “Then to Alabama belong the navigable waters, and soils under them, in controversy in this case, subject to the rights surrendered by the Constitution to the United States, and no compact that might be made between her and the United States could diminish or enlarge these rights.”*
> 
> The United States never held municipal jurisdiction within a State once a State is formed and admitted to the union: *"the soil, the shores, the waters, and land beneath the waters belong to the State respectively:"*
> We see here that Idaho does NOT belong to you as in.....
> _*"You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country
> too"
> Also in Harcourt v. Gaillard, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 523, 526, 527 (1827), we find that the U.S. Court stated:
> 
> “There was no territory within the United States that was claimed in any other right than that of some one of the confederated states; therefore, there could be no acquisition of territory made by the United States distinct from, or independent of some one of the states.
> 
> “Each declared itself sovereign and independent, according to the limits of its territory.
> 
> “[T]he soil and sovereignty within their acknowledged limits were as much theirs at the declaration of independence as at this hour.”
> 
> Also in M’Ilvaine v. Coxe’s Lessee, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 209, 212 (1808), where it was held:
> 
> “This opinion is predicated upon a principle which is believed to be undeniable, that the several states which composed this Union, so far at least as regarded their municipal regulations, became entitled, from the time when they declared themselves independent, to all the rights and powers of sovereign states, and that they did not derive them from concessions made by the British king. The treaty of peace contains a recognition of their independence, not a grant of it. From hence it results, that the laws of the several state governments were the laws of sovereign states, and as such were obligatory upon the people of such state, from the time they were enacted.”
> 
> Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17 of the U.S. Constitution, which read as follows:
> 
> “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.”
> Here we see that any jurisdiction of the States as a collective in government formation has NO JURISDICTION OUTSIDE OF THE TEN MILES SQUARE THAT IS THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS NON-EXISTENT EXCEPT WITHIN A U.S. FORT, AN ARSENAL, A U.S. GOVERNMENT BUILDING, MAGAZINE, OR DOCK YARD, THUS ANY JURISDICTION BEYOND THAT IS THAT OF EACH STATE RESPECTIVELY/INDIVIDUALLY.*_
> What I am pointing out here is that this was intended to be a union of States, not a consolidation of them, I as a Tennessean do not own New YORK, Idaho or any other State, I cannot claim ...
> _*"You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country
> too"*_
> *They are suppose to be separate States united, NOT CONSOLIDATED.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederate States were NOT re-admitted, this was an illusion. The Confederate States were replaces....
> A State by definition is *"A MODE OF GOVERNMENT"
> Example of how the Confederate States were replaced, therefore WERE NOT RE-ADMITTED.....
> Isham (I'-sam) G. Harris, of Memphis, was elected governor of Tennessee in 1857, and again in 1859, both times by large majorities.
> On February 22 upon the invasion and occupation of Tennessee Grant declared martial law
> 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 Confederate 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.
> 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 vercomes 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]
> 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.
> 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).
> Governor Harris was a lame duck governor at the time of the invasion of Tennessee, Robert Caruthers was governor elect, hence the dejure elected governor of Tennessee, yet was NOT allowed to take office.....
> William Gannaway Brownlow was elected Governor on March 4.
> This election, was limited to only pro-Unionists.
> It was under this appointed government/State that this NEW TENNESSEE was admitted, not the de jure Confederate State of Tennessee.
> If The Confederate State of Tennessee had been re-admitted, then that would indicate that secession had been accomplished which would NOT be possible if secession was indeed illegal.
> So one must answer the question....
> Was the Confederate State of Tennessee "re-admitted" or replaced by another State?
> 
> 
> New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm much more familiar with the battles of Franklin, Shiloh, Stones River and Nashville.   I've actually made quite a study of the campaigns in Tennessee.  That aside, my answer to your argument is:  you don't own Tennessee any more than I do.   In any case the proponents of secession have an extremely limited scope and circumstance to their argument, more about fine legal distinctions rather than any actual principles.   If you believe secession is an absolute right based on some principle, then you should have no problem when the result is West Virginia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The principle cannot ignore the law, While the creation of West Virginia may be based in our a Declaration of Independence, to which I agree, a law was in place in Both Constitutions that.....
> *New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
> Now, just as in the ratification of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, concerning Article XIII of the 1781 Constitution, the law in place must be repealed following the proper prescribed procedure before any further action can take place concerning that law.
> In other words, the law must be followed, amended, or repealed to allow the principle to follow through, otherwise it becomes an act of rebellion to the law.
> Again however, there was no law concerning secession, hence no law existed to be amended, or repealed.
> Concerning The battles in Tennessee, my ancestors were involved, one of which fought in the 4th Tennessee cavalry in McClemores unit under Starnes and Forrest.\, which were involved in many battles, the most amazing to me was the pursuit of Streights raiders. My great great grandfather was among the 4th Tennessee escort when our President was abducted by the invaders.
> This however is not my motivation or any blind dedication to the restoration cause, as the restorations end is at the restoration of a wholly federal system, of the Articles of Confederation, a true Confederacy of States as was intended by the founders.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hardly that, the secession of West Virginia happened because, unlike other states, Virginia decided the question by having county based referendums.   Had that happened in Tennessee,  several eastern counties would have seceded from Tennessee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again what was the law concerning a State being formed within the Jurisdiction of another?
> *New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
> Now was the law fulfilled?
> Did the Confederate States Congress CONSENT to the formation of West Virginia within The State of Virginia?
> Again the Constitution would require amending to allow such to occur without the consent of congress. While I may agree in principle the law is the law.
> I must be honest here. I was unaware that Virginia allowed county referendum on the subject, and clearly I need to further research the issue, however the CSA Constitution is as clear as the U.S. Constitution concerning a new State being formed within the jurisdiction of another. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've noticed that many proponents of secession are very specific about the Constitution, until we get to the part where the Constitution expressly allows for secession and describes the legal mechanisms for doing so.  When we get to that point in the argument it starts to become a little vague.
Click to expand...


I agree, but I still think the issue could have been settled without  war if the hotheads on each side had not been the most powerful groups.
Whatever,  it took a horrible war and bloodbath to settle the issue of slavery. And, I see the saddest thing is one man, a representative of South Carolina refusing to sign the Constitution unless slavery was left intact caused it all:
"John Rutledge of South Carolina responded forcefully. "Religion and humanity have nothing to do with this question," he insisted. Unless regulation of the slave trade was left to the states, the southern-most states "shall not be parties to the union." A Virginia delegate, George Mason, who owned hundreds of slaves, spoke out against slavery in ringing terms. "Slavery," he said, "discourages arts and manufactures. The poor despise labor when performed by slaves." Slavery also corrupted slaveholders and threatened the country with divine punishment: "Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of Heaven on a country."


----------



## James Everett

Liminal said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> M
> Here is my response to not, simply you, but many who have made a similar statement......
> You are looking at the union through a distorted lens.
> You statement that......
> *"You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country
> too"*
> _This was before the Lincoln's war of rebellion, and the subsequient 17th amendment as a result thereof, (A UNION OF STATES) ......
> As Alexander Hamilton stated in "The Federalist #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. "*
> Point being is that there was *NOT* suppose to be a consolidation into one complete national sovereignty, yet you view Idaho as YOURS. I never view another State as mine, I view it as a member State in a union/confederacy of States, just as one would view those States united under the United Nations Charter. A Constitution after all is a Charter, between States, it is a treaty between States, it is a compact between States.
> Why do you think that another State belongs to you?
> Here are a few SCOTUS opinions concerning this municipal jurisdiction that so many think that they hold over a State wherein they do not reside, as if.....
> *"You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country
> too"*
> Pollard’s Lessee v Hagan, that for the United States, (The States collectively in union) to hold municipal jurisdiction within a State that …….
> *“Such a power is not only repugnant to the Constitution, but it is inconsistent with the spirit and intention of the deeds of cession.”
> “Then to Alabama belong the navigable waters, and soils under them, in controversy in this case, subject to the rights surrendered by the Constitution to the United States, and no compact that might be made between her and the United States could diminish or enlarge these rights.”*
> 
> The United States never held municipal jurisdiction within a State once a State is formed and admitted to the union: *"the soil, the shores, the waters, and land beneath the waters belong to the State respectively:"*
> We see here that Idaho does NOT belong to you as in.....
> _*"You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country
> too"
> Also in Harcourt v. Gaillard, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 523, 526, 527 (1827), we find that the U.S. Court stated:
> 
> “There was no territory within the United States that was claimed in any other right than that of some one of the confederated states; therefore, there could be no acquisition of territory made by the United States distinct from, or independent of some one of the states.
> 
> “Each declared itself sovereign and independent, according to the limits of its territory.
> 
> “[T]he soil and sovereignty within their acknowledged limits were as much theirs at the declaration of independence as at this hour.”
> 
> Also in M’Ilvaine v. Coxe’s Lessee, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 209, 212 (1808), where it was held:
> 
> “This opinion is predicated upon a principle which is believed to be undeniable, that the several states which composed this Union, so far at least as regarded their municipal regulations, became entitled, from the time when they declared themselves independent, to all the rights and powers of sovereign states, and that they did not derive them from concessions made by the British king. The treaty of peace contains a recognition of their independence, not a grant of it. From hence it results, that the laws of the several state governments were the laws of sovereign states, and as such were obligatory upon the people of such state, from the time they were enacted.”
> 
> Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17 of the U.S. Constitution, which read as follows:
> 
> “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.”
> Here we see that any jurisdiction of the States as a collective in government formation has NO JURISDICTION OUTSIDE OF THE TEN MILES SQUARE THAT IS THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS NON-EXISTENT EXCEPT WITHIN A U.S. FORT, AN ARSENAL, A U.S. GOVERNMENT BUILDING, MAGAZINE, OR DOCK YARD, THUS ANY JURISDICTION BEYOND THAT IS THAT OF EACH STATE RESPECTIVELY/INDIVIDUALLY.*_
> What I am pointing out here is that this was intended to be a union of States, not a consolidation of them, I as a Tennessean do not own New YORK, Idaho or any other State, I cannot claim ...
> _*"You don't get to break apart my county, you don't have my permission, because that's my country
> too"*_
> *They are suppose to be separate States united, NOT CONSOLIDATED.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederate States were NOT re-admitted, this was an illusion. The Confederate States were replaces....
> A State by definition is *"A MODE OF GOVERNMENT"
> Example of how the Confederate States were replaced, therefore WERE NOT RE-ADMITTED.....
> Isham (I'-sam) G. Harris, of Memphis, was elected governor of Tennessee in 1857, and again in 1859, both times by large majorities.
> On February 22 upon the invasion and occupation of Tennessee Grant declared martial law
> 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 Confederate 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.
> 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 vercomes 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]
> 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.
> 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).
> Governor Harris was a lame duck governor at the time of the invasion of Tennessee, Robert Caruthers was governor elect, hence the dejure elected governor of Tennessee, yet was NOT allowed to take office.....
> William Gannaway Brownlow was elected Governor on March 4.
> This election, was limited to only pro-Unionists.
> It was under this appointed government/State that this NEW TENNESSEE was admitted, not the de jure Confederate State of Tennessee.
> If The Confederate State of Tennessee had been re-admitted, then that would indicate that secession had been accomplished which would NOT be possible if secession was indeed illegal.
> So one must answer the question....
> Was the Confederate State of Tennessee "re-admitted" or replaced by another State?
> 
> 
> New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm much more familiar with the battles of Franklin, Shiloh, Stones River and Nashville.   I've actually made quite a study of the campaigns in Tennessee.  That aside, my answer to your argument is:  you don't own Tennessee any more than I do.   In any case the proponents of secession have an extremely limited scope and circumstance to their argument, more about fine legal distinctions rather than any actual principles.   If you believe secession is an absolute right based on some principle, then you should have no problem when the result is West Virginia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The principle cannot ignore the law, While the creation of West Virginia may be based in our a Declaration of Independence, to which I agree, a law was in place in Both Constitutions that.....
> *New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
> Now, just as in the ratification of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, concerning Article XIII of the 1781 Constitution, the law in place must be repealed following the proper prescribed procedure before any further action can take place concerning that law.
> In other words, the law must be followed, amended, or repealed to allow the principle to follow through, otherwise it becomes an act of rebellion to the law.
> Again however, there was no law concerning secession, hence no law existed to be amended, or repealed.
> Concerning The battles in Tennessee, my ancestors were involved, one of which fought in the 4th Tennessee cavalry in McClemores unit under Starnes and Forrest.\, which were involved in many battles, the most amazing to me was the pursuit of Streights raiders. My great great grandfather was among the 4th Tennessee escort when our President was abducted by the invaders.
> This however is not my motivation or any blind dedication to the restoration cause, as the restorations end is at the restoration of a wholly federal system, of the Articles of Confederation, a true Confederacy of States as was intended by the founders.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hardly that, the secession of West Virginia happened because, unlike other states, Virginia decided the question by having county based referendums.   Had that happened in Tennessee,  several eastern counties would have seceded from Tennessee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again what was the law concerning a State being formed within the Jurisdiction of another?
> *New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
> Now was the law fulfilled?
> Did the Confederate States Congress CONSENT to the formation of West Virginia within The State of Virginia?
> Again the Constitution would require amending to allow such to occur without the consent of congress. While I may agree in principle the law is the law.
> I must be honest here. I was unaware that Virginia allowed county referendum on the subject, and clearly I need to further research the issue, however the CSA Constitution is as clear as the U.S. Constitution concerning a new State being formed within the jurisdiction of another. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've noticed that many proponents of secession are very specific about the Constitution, until we get to the part where the Constitution expressly allows for secession and describes the legal mechanisms for doing so.  When we get to that point in the argument it starts to become a little vague.
Click to expand...

Well lets examine this legal method for secession.
It is called the tenth amendment, which is specific in that it states that any power not delegated to the United States, (The States in union as a collective) is reserved to each State respectively, (INDIVIDUALLY). If no law exists concerning secession, or no power was delegated to the United States, (The States in union collectively) to prevent secession, or a method in which a State may secede, then that power is reserved by each State individually. Simply in analogy, if there is no law stating how one may paint his home, then clearly the method in which he chooses to paint is left to that individual, Brush, or Spray?
The method for secession is not vague, it is non-existent, leaving the method and the power to each State individually. There is no possible way that a method for every power reserved to the States individually could ever be enumerated, therefore all power not delegated by the States are left to each individually.


----------



## James Everett

natstew said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm much more familiar with the battles of Franklin, Shiloh, Stones River and Nashville.   I've actually made quite a study of the campaigns in Tennessee.  That aside, my answer to your argument is:  you don't own Tennessee any more than I do.   In any case the proponents of secession have an extremely limited scope and circumstance to their argument, more about fine legal distinctions rather than any actual principles.   If you believe secession is an absolute right based on some principle, then you should have no problem when the result is West Virginia.
> 
> 
> 
> The principle cannot ignore the law, While the creation of West Virginia may be based in our a Declaration of Independence, to which I agree, a law was in place in Both Constitutions that.....
> *New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
> Now, just as in the ratification of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, concerning Article XIII of the 1781 Constitution, the law in place must be repealed following the proper prescribed procedure before any further action can take place concerning that law.
> In other words, the law must be followed, amended, or repealed to allow the principle to follow through, otherwise it becomes an act of rebellion to the law.
> Again however, there was no law concerning secession, hence no law existed to be amended, or repealed.
> Concerning The battles in Tennessee, my ancestors were involved, one of which fought in the 4th Tennessee cavalry in McClemores unit under Starnes and Forrest.\, which were involved in many battles, the most amazing to me was the pursuit of Streights raiders. My great great grandfather was among the 4th Tennessee escort when our President was abducted by the invaders.
> This however is not my motivation or any blind dedication to the restoration cause, as the restorations end is at the restoration of a wholly federal system, of the Articles of Confederation, a true Confederacy of States as was intended by the founders.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hardly that, the secession of West Virginia happened because, unlike other states, Virginia decided the question by having county based referendums.   Had that happened in Tennessee,  several eastern counties would have seceded from Tennessee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again what was the law concerning a State being formed within the Jurisdiction of another?
> *New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
> Now was the law fulfilled?
> Did the Confederate States Congress CONSENT to the formation of West Virginia within The State of Virginia?
> Again the Constitution would require amending to allow such to occur without the consent of congress. While I may agree in principle the law is the law.
> I must be honest here. I was unaware that Virginia allowed county referendum on the subject, and clearly I need to further research the issue, however the CSA Constitution is as clear as the U.S. Constitution concerning a new State being formed within the jurisdiction of another. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've noticed that many proponents of secession are very specific about the Constitution, until we get to the part where the Constitution expressly allows for secession and describes the legal mechanisms for doing so.  When we get to that point in the argument it starts to become a little vague.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, but I still think the issue could have been settled without  war if the hotheads on each side had not been the most powerful groups.
> Whatever,  it took a horrible war and bloodbath to settle the issue of slavery. And, I see the saddest thing is one man, a representative of South Carolina refusing to sign the Constitution unless slavery was left intact caused it all:
> "John Rutledge of South Carolina responded forcefully. "Religion and humanity have nothing to do with this question," he insisted. Unless regulation of the slave trade was left to the states, the southern-most states "shall not be parties to the union." A Virginia delegate, George Mason, who owned hundreds of slaves, spoke out against slavery in ringing terms. "Slavery," he said, "discourages arts and manufactures. The poor despise labor when performed by slaves." Slavery also corrupted slaveholders and threatened the country with divine punishment: "Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of Heaven on a country."
Click to expand...

Well that is not exactly the beginning of the slavery problem. Slavery began long before then under English rule, and the legality of the issue, began when a Black man named Anthony Johnson claimed that his Black indentured servant John Casor was his slave for life. The issue was settled in English courts and John Casor was the first legal victim of Slavery in America. 
It is sad that the people became dependent on it to the point that justification was made in several ways when our own declaration declared it a self evident truth that all men are created equal, which in itself is not actually true, as only one man was ever created and that was Adam, all others were born, hence born equally dependent on others for survival, until able to survive on their own. 
But the mistreatment of the Black man is only part of our past mistreatment of our fellow man in America, when the issue of our 1861 Confederacy is raised it always turns to the issue of the enslavement of the Black man and completely ignores the extermination practices against our Native American Indian brothers by the U.S.
This is why the only relevant issue is the legality of secession rather than the causes, as the causes be it slavery and the others, existed long before secession occurred. We can look at the divisions today in the context of North and South, and there still is a divide that is not associated with the past secession's but rather current issues and a seemingly difference in our core beliefs. 
Again, my use of the legality of secession, and the defense of our Confederate States is simply for the purpose of restoring the Articles of Confederation for the Southern States that seceded in 1860 and 1861. The legal issue is a door that was left cracked open for us to enter and follow a legal path to the restoration of the Articles using our 1861 Confederacy as a path which can lead us there,


----------



## Liminal

James Everett said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm much more familiar with the battles of Franklin, Shiloh, Stones River and Nashville.   I've actually made quite a study of the campaigns in Tennessee.  That aside, my answer to your argument is:  you don't own Tennessee any more than I do.   In any case the proponents of secession have an extremely limited scope and circumstance to their argument, more about fine legal distinctions rather than any actual principles.   If you believe secession is an absolute right based on some principle, then you should have no problem when the result is West Virginia.
> 
> 
> 
> The principle cannot ignore the law, While the creation of West Virginia may be based in our a Declaration of Independence, to which I agree, a law was in place in Both Constitutions that.....
> *New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
> Now, just as in the ratification of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, concerning Article XIII of the 1781 Constitution, the law in place must be repealed following the proper prescribed procedure before any further action can take place concerning that law.
> In other words, the law must be followed, amended, or repealed to allow the principle to follow through, otherwise it becomes an act of rebellion to the law.
> Again however, there was no law concerning secession, hence no law existed to be amended, or repealed.
> Concerning The battles in Tennessee, my ancestors were involved, one of which fought in the 4th Tennessee cavalry in McClemores unit under Starnes and Forrest.\, which were involved in many battles, the most amazing to me was the pursuit of Streights raiders. My great great grandfather was among the 4th Tennessee escort when our President was abducted by the invaders.
> This however is not my motivation or any blind dedication to the restoration cause, as the restorations end is at the restoration of a wholly federal system, of the Articles of Confederation, a true Confederacy of States as was intended by the founders.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hardly that, the secession of West Virginia happened because, unlike other states, Virginia decided the question by having county based referendums.   Had that happened in Tennessee,  several eastern counties would have seceded from Tennessee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again what was the law concerning a State being formed within the Jurisdiction of another?
> *New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
> Now was the law fulfilled?
> Did the Confederate States Congress CONSENT to the formation of West Virginia within The State of Virginia?
> Again the Constitution would require amending to allow such to occur without the consent of congress. While I may agree in principle the law is the law.
> I must be honest here. I was unaware that Virginia allowed county referendum on the subject, and clearly I need to further research the issue, however the CSA Constitution is as clear as the U.S. Constitution concerning a new State being formed within the jurisdiction of another. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've noticed that many proponents of secession are very specific about the Constitution, until we get to the part where the Constitution expressly allows for secession and describes the legal mechanisms for doing so.  When we get to that point in the argument it starts to become a little vague.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well lets examine this legal method for secession.
> It is called the tenth amendment, which is specific in that it states that any power not delegated to the United States, (The States in union as a collective) is reserved to each State respectively, (INDIVIDUALLY). If no law exists concerning secession, or no power was delegated to the United States, (The States in union collectively) to prevent secession, or a method in which a State may secede, then that power is reserved by each State individually. Simply in analogy, if there is no law stating how one may paint his home, then clearly the method in which he chooses to paint is left to that individual, Brush, or Spray?
> The method for secession is not vague, it is non-existent, leaving the method and the power to each State individually. There is no possible way that a method for every power reserved to the States individually could ever be enumerated, therefore all power not delegated by the States are left to each individually.
Click to expand...


No I don't think we do, we don't leave the power to dismember the nation up to individual states.  That would just be stupid, wouldn't it.  That wouldn't make any sense at all.


----------



## James Everett

Liminal said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> The principle cannot ignore the law, While the creation of West Virginia may be based in our a Declaration of Independence, to which I agree, a law was in place in Both Constitutions that.....
> *New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
> Now, just as in the ratification of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, concerning Article XIII of the 1781 Constitution, the law in place must be repealed following the proper prescribed procedure before any further action can take place concerning that law.
> In other words, the law must be followed, amended, or repealed to allow the principle to follow through, otherwise it becomes an act of rebellion to the law.
> Again however, there was no law concerning secession, hence no law existed to be amended, or repealed.
> Concerning The battles in Tennessee, my ancestors were involved, one of which fought in the 4th Tennessee cavalry in McClemores unit under Starnes and Forrest.\, which were involved in many battles, the most amazing to me was the pursuit of Streights raiders. My great great grandfather was among the 4th Tennessee escort when our President was abducted by the invaders.
> This however is not my motivation or any blind dedication to the restoration cause, as the restorations end is at the restoration of a wholly federal system, of the Articles of Confederation, a true Confederacy of States as was intended by the founders.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly that, the secession of West Virginia happened because, unlike other states, Virginia decided the question by having county based referendums.   Had that happened in Tennessee,  several eastern counties would have seceded from Tennessee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again what was the law concerning a State being formed within the Jurisdiction of another?
> *New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
> Now was the law fulfilled?
> Did the Confederate States Congress CONSENT to the formation of West Virginia within The State of Virginia?
> Again the Constitution would require amending to allow such to occur without the consent of congress. While I may agree in principle the law is the law.
> I must be honest here. I was unaware that Virginia allowed county referendum on the subject, and clearly I need to further research the issue, however the CSA Constitution is as clear as the U.S. Constitution concerning a new State being formed within the jurisdiction of another. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've noticed that many proponents of secession are very specific about the Constitution, until we get to the part where the Constitution expressly allows for secession and describes the legal mechanisms for doing so.  When we get to that point in the argument it starts to become a little vague.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well lets examine this legal method for secession.
> It is called the tenth amendment, which is specific in that it states that any power not delegated to the United States, (The States in union as a collective) is reserved to each State respectively, (INDIVIDUALLY). If no law exists concerning secession, or no power was delegated to the United States, (The States in union collectively) to prevent secession, or a method in which a State may secede, then that power is reserved by each State individually. Simply in analogy, if there is no law stating how one may paint his home, then clearly the method in which he chooses to paint is left to that individual, Brush, or Spray?
> The method for secession is not vague, it is non-existent, leaving the method and the power to each State individually. There is no possible way that a method for every power reserved to the States individually could ever be enumerated, therefore all power not delegated by the States are left to each individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I don't think we do, we don't leave the power to dismember the nation up to individual states.  That would just be stupid, wouldn't it.  That wouldn't make any sense at all.
Click to expand...

Again, you are looking at it as a consolidation of the States.
It was not a consolidation, it was a union as in United States. To look at it otherwise is to equate it to the structure of the former Soviet Union, which was a union by force, hence a tyranny. The "power to dismember the union" is not up to individual States, what is up to individual States is the power as an individual State to remove itself from the union.
Under International law......
*"In the case of multilateral agreements, denunciation or withdrawal generally does not affect the treaty’s continuation in force for the remaining parties*. 
*The termination of a multilateral agreement occurs only when the treaty ceases to exist for all States parties.*
*In the treaty/CONstitution/charter/compact between the States, the power to withdraw from that treaty/CONstitution/charter/compact by each State individually was contained in the tenth amendment wherein each State retained all power not specifically delegated to the collective of States in union, (The United States).
A public announcement to the other parties of a treaty is important in terminating a treaty: This announcement came with public declarations by each State that exited the union.
*


----------



## Dante

James Everett said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question was settled at the Constitutional Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> No. The question was settled by the Civil War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A question is never settled by violence or disregard of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the war settled nothing. All the war did was begin 150 years of occupation and counting. Many States have been occupied by other States, some for far more years than our Southern Confederate States, and saw an end to that occupation.
Click to expand...

Oh, a crazy talker? Welcome too usmb


----------



## Dante

James Everett said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You HAVE answered my question the way I described above.
> 
> Your argument is over.  No room exists, per the OP, for other pertinent questions.
> 
> Mods, please close the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Good grief, JAKE, are you that over your head that you are begging the moderators to close the thread to bail you out again. How very pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just allow jake to give you some...oh never mind. He's a little rat faced tattler
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The funny thing is, I asked him the question that he claims to have asked me. I never answered my own question to him. He must be on crack.
Click to expand...

Starkey is emotionally retarded as well as intellectually bankrupt...why do you bother?


----------



## Dante

James Everett said:


> *1)* There is a distinction between the "founding fathers" and the "framers", they are not one and the same. There was a split among the "founders" the "rats" and the "anti-rats" , ratifiers and ant-ratifiers. Among the "anti-rats was Patrick Henry, who stated that the 1787 CONstitution established a government that would not last a century. He was right...
> 
> *2)* ...as a result of Lincoln's rebellion, the system of government that was established by the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution was destroyed, in fact federalism, and the union of States were destroyed.
> 
> *3)* Most refer to "the federal government" today as if a federal system still exists, when in fact all that remains is a national system ( a national government) not a federal government. This may be understood by reading the Federalist# 39 wherein James Madison explains the system that Lincoln destroyed using his rebellion and war on the Confederacy, which was also a war on federalism and the union, facilitating a complete consolidation into a single sovereign State.
> 
> *4)* As for the militia; the militia are every able bodied man. A  Well regulated  militia is necessary to a free State. Which States today have a well regulated militia? The National guard is not the militia. "Well regulated" meant well funded, not controlled by the central body of government.
> CSAgov.org


James Everett

*1)* Really? Well there is a fine distinction between the founders and the framers and the ratifiers. Madison when asked, replied that one should not look to those who formed and created the Constitution for interpretations and meaning, but to look to the people who ratified the Constitution, as it was they and not the clerks who gave the Constitution it's power and legitimacy.
*
2)* Really? 

*from the state of South Carolina* "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"
*
from Lincoln in 1862* "Without slavery the rebellion could never have existed; without slavery it could not continue"

before revisionist had their say, both sides admitted it was the Confederacy that was in rebellion and that is was mostly over slavery. hmm...

*3)* a simple cursory engine search exposes your logic and arguments as pathetically imbecilic.

*Federalism*
Federalism is a system of government in which the same territory is controlled by two levels of government. Generally, an overarching national government governs issues that affect the entire country, and smaller subdivisions govern issues of local concern. Both the national government and the smaller political subdivisions have the power to make laws and both have a certain level of autonomy from each other. The United States has a federal system of governance consisting of the national or federal government, and the government of the individual states. Federalism Wex Legal Dictionary Encyclopedia LII Legal Information Institute​*4) *section 8: Congressional duties/role

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

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

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by 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 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

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

_*in the end you look even dumber than Jake   that is no small feat*_​


----------



## whitehall

Profound statements like the one attributed to Lincoln "without slavery the rebellion never could have existed, without slavery it cannot continue" might sound great to pop-culture educated victims of union based schools but it is meaningless. Slavery existed for a hundred years before old "Honest Abe" was born and he was apparently satisfied with the status quo during his political career. The issue wasn't slavery but the expansion of slavery into the new territories. Slavery was doomed with the advent of the industrial revolution even if hot headed Southern politicians and thick headed Yankees failed to acknowledge it. If Lincoln only held out for a couple of years more by making promises or offering compromises and if cooler heads prevailed in the South the carnage would not have happened and slavery would have been voted out like it was in New Jersey scarcely 15 years before the Civil War. The problem was that Lincoln was an inept leader despite his gift of rhetoric and he and the U.S. military as well as the hot headed Rebels were profoundly ignorant of what would happen when the shit hit the fan. Both sides thought the war would be over in a month and they were sadly mistaken to the point of criminality. Even during the insanity of WW2 only monsters and savages would have entered a city, ordered the inhabitants out and set fire to it but a possibly insane Union general who thought he was "God's terrible swift sword" burned Atlanta and Lincoln (and history) praised him for it.


----------



## Dante

whitehall


whitehall said:


> Profound statements like the one attributed to Lincoln "without slavery the rebellion never could have existed, without slavery it cannot continue" might sound great to pop-culture educated victims of union based schools but it is meaningless. Slavery existed for a hundred years before old "Honest Abe" was born and he was apparently satisfied with the status quo during his political career. The issue wasn't slavery but the expansion of slavery into the new territories. Slavery was doomed with the advent of the industrial revolution even if hot headed Southern politicians and thick headed Yankees failed to acknowledge it.
> 
> If Lincoln only held out for a couple of years more by making promises or offering compromises and if cooler heads prevailed in the South the carnage would not have happened and slavery would have been voted out like it was in New Jersey scarcely 15 years before the Civil War. The problem was that Lincoln was an inept leader despite his gift of rhetoric and he and the U.S. military as well as the hot headed Rebels were profoundly ignorant of what would happen when the shit hit the fan. Both sides thought the war would be over in a month and they were sadly mistaken to the point of criminality. Even during the insanity of WW2 only monsters and savages would have entered a city, ordered the inhabitants out and set fire to it but a possibly insane Union general who thought he was "God's terrible swift sword" burned Atlanta and Lincoln (and history) praised him for it.



If only Lincoln had a crystal ball...the industrial revolution? If only South Carolina   didn't start the ball rolling: "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"

Your attack on Lincoln is duly noted. wtf cares? Dante will not defend or engage on Lincoln. Your red herring is also duly noted


----------



## Dante

DGS49 said:


> (1)  Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union?  Why or why not?  They came in voluntarily, right?
> 
> (2)  What is a "proclamation" (e.g., the "Emancipation Proclamation")?  Does it have the force of law within the United States?  Where, in Article II does the President get this power?  Why did President Lincoln not free the slaves in the Border States?  Was the emancipation legal anywhere?  Why was the thirteenth amendment necessary?
> 
> (3)  On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders?   Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)?  Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?


peep


----------



## whitehall

Dante said:


> whitehall
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Profound statements like the one attributed to Lincoln "without slavery the rebellion never could have existed, without slavery it cannot continue" might sound great to pop-culture educated victims of union based schools but it is meaningless. Slavery existed for a hundred years before old "Honest Abe" was born and he was apparently satisfied with the status quo during his political career. The issue wasn't slavery but the expansion of slavery into the new territories. Slavery was doomed with the advent of the industrial revolution even if hot headed Southern politicians and thick headed Yankees failed to acknowledge it.
> 
> If Lincoln only held out for a couple of years more by making promises or offering compromises and if cooler heads prevailed in the South the carnage would not have happened and slavery would have been voted out like it was in New Jersey scarcely 15 years before the Civil War. The problem was that Lincoln was an inept leader despite his gift of rhetoric and he and the U.S. military as well as the hot headed Rebels were profoundly ignorant of what would happen when the shit hit the fan. Both sides thought the war would be over in a month and they were sadly mistaken to the point of criminality. Even during the insanity of WW2 only monsters and savages would have entered a city, ordered the inhabitants out and set fire to it but a possibly insane Union general who thought he was "God's terrible swift sword" burned Atlanta and Lincoln (and history) praised him for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If only Lincoln had a crystal ball...the industrial revolution? If only South Carolina   didn't start the ball rolling: "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"
> 
> Your attack on Lincoln is duly noted. wtf cares? Dante will not defend or engage on Lincoln. Your red herring is also duly noted
Click to expand...

If you quote Lincoln you already engaged on Lincoln. It was his job as president to try to keep the Union together before it led to armed conflict and he failed...miserably. The Industrial Revolution was underway for a decade before the Civil War. Slavery could not exist if it wasn't for the Yankee demand for cotton and you can bet your ass that Lincoln did not want to deprive the North of either cotton or the slave labor connected to it. The flag that flew from the stern of slave ships wasn't the Confederate flag. It was the Stars and Stripes.


----------



## Dante

whitehall said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Profound statements like the one attributed to Lincoln "without slavery the rebellion never could have existed, without slavery it cannot continue" might sound great to pop-culture educated victims of union based schools but it is meaningless. Slavery existed for a hundred years before old "Honest Abe" was born and he was apparently satisfied with the status quo during his political career. The issue wasn't slavery but the expansion of slavery into the new territories. Slavery was doomed with the advent of the industrial revolution even if hot headed Southern politicians and thick headed Yankees failed to acknowledge it.
> 
> If Lincoln only held out for a couple of years more by making promises or offering compromises and if cooler heads prevailed in the South the carnage would not have happened and slavery would have been voted out like it was in New Jersey scarcely 15 years before the Civil War. The problem was that Lincoln was an inept leader despite his gift of rhetoric and he and the U.S. military as well as the hot headed Rebels were profoundly ignorant of what would happen when the shit hit the fan. Both sides thought the war would be over in a month and they were sadly mistaken to the point of criminality. Even during the insanity of WW2 only monsters and savages would have entered a city, ordered the inhabitants out and set fire to it but a possibly insane Union general who thought he was "God's terrible swift sword" burned Atlanta and Lincoln (and history) praised him for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If only Lincoln had a crystal ball...the industrial revolution? If only South Carolina   didn't start the ball rolling: "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"
> 
> Your attack on Lincoln is duly noted. wtf cares? Dante will not defend or engage on Lincoln. Your red herring is also duly noted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you quote Lincoln you already engaged on Lincoln. It was his job as president to try to keep the Union together before it led to armed conflict and he failed...miserably. The Industrial Revolution was underway for a decade before the Civil War. Slavery could not exist if it wasn't for the Yankee demand for cotton and you can bet your ass that Lincoln did not want to deprive the North of either cotton or the slave labor connected to it. The flag that flew from the stern of slave ships wasn't the Confederate flag. It was the Stars and Stripes.
Click to expand...

blah, blah, blah,  blame Lincoln for South Carolina secession Okie Dokie


----------



## danielpalos

I believe the South should have "harassed a Judge" for eminent domain before waging war on the North.


----------



## Skylar

DGS49 said:


> (1)  Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union?  Why or why not?  They came in voluntarily, right?



They did. But once they entered, they lost their unique character of sole sovereignty. Their territory became part of the greater whole, with each state becoming a voice among many. If you want to take territory from the United States, you have to get the consent of the United States at the very least.

Madison, the 'father of the constitution' claimed that the constitution had to be accepted 'en toto and forever', rejecting the idea of a right to secession. 



> (2)  What is a "proclamation" (e.g., the "Emancipation Proclamation")?  Does it have the force of law within the United States?  Where, in Article II does the President get this power?  Why did President Lincoln not free the slaves in the Border States?  Was the emancipation legal anywhere?  Why was the thirteenth amendment necessary?
> 
> The Emancipation Proclaimation was a wartime EO applying only to the slave states. In a state of rebellion, the President has much more authority than in peacetime. The amendment was to extend this to all states and outlaw the practice entirely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (3)  On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders?   Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)?  Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?
Click to expand...


The government took no property. Taking implies that the government took ownership. It did no such thing. It eliminated ownership. 

Though compensation did have historical president internationally. When Britain abolished slavery, the British government did make a one time payment to cover the costs. It was a fraction of what the slave would produce in labor. But it was something. 

It might have formed the basis of a reasonable compromise. But the southern state's rebellion made it moot.


----------



## heirtothewind

The Constitution prohibits States from entering treaties, alliances, or confederations [Art I. Sec.10]. Although I found no pre-Civil War decisions on this subject, the plain text seems to make the Confederacy unconstitutional so that the seceding States could not be recognized as having any legal existence. Today, its practical significance lies in the limitations which it implies upon the power of the States to deal with matters having a bearing upon international relations.


Nullification Doctrine, first expressed in Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 declaring Alien and Sedition Acts unconstitutional, is a legal theory that the Constitution is only a compact among states to delegate limited powers to a national government to deal with national affairs but not to interfere with the political, social, or economic structure or interests of the sovereign [self-governing] states.  Therefore, states can ultimately determine whether a federal law exceeds authority of the national government, declare it unconstitutional, and refuse to enforce it.  Jefferson drafted the resolutions, which advocate state rights and strict construction of Constitution.  Calhoun used this theory to justify the Ordinance of Nullification of federal tariff laws in SC in 1832.  Jackson responded with threat to deploy federal troops to enforce the law, stating that a state’s power to invalidate a federal law is inconsistent with the existence of a Union.  The Constitution forms a government, not a league of sovereign states; and to say that a state may at will secede from the Union is to say the US is not a nation. [Proclamation on Nullification]


Confederate states adopted resolutions similar to Declaration of Independence to provide official justification for secession, comparing southern secession to the American Revolution. [Declarations of Secession]. These documents cite the Constitution [Art. IV] providing for return of fugitive slave.  Recognition of slavery was essential to forming’’ a more perfect union’’ for southern states.  South argued that northern anti-slave movement and failure to enforce fugitive slave provision justified secession.  Northern states granted freedom to fugitive slaves by law [using nullification theory as justification]; refused to enforce Fugitive Slave Act [fed military very small]; encouraged Underground Railroad.


----------



## Horse girl

Actually what I have read is that when the Southern states joined the union they also made it perfectly clear that they had the right to secede from the union. When Lincoln and company realized the economic damage this was gonna cause (icy ports for example and the ships having a hard time navigating the ports in winter) they wanted nothing more than the South back by any means necessary.


----------



## Syriusly

Horse girl said:


> Actually what I have read is that when the Southern states joined the union they also made it perfectly clear that they had the right to secede from the union. When Lincoln and company realized the economic damage this was gonna cause (icy ports for example and the ships having a hard time navigating the ports in winter) they wanted nothing more than the South back by any means necessary.



I think you have read wrong.


----------



## Horse girl

How? By actually listening to the South's side of the story? Somehow I don't think the history books are telling the truth


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

heirtothewind said:


> The Constitution prohibits States from entering treaties, alliances, or confederations [Art I. Sec.10]. Although I found no pre-Civil War decisions on this subject, the plain text seems to make the Confederacy unconstitutional so that the seceding States could not be recognized as having any legal existence. Today, its practical significance lies in the limitations which it implies upon the power of the States to deal with matters having a bearing upon international relations.
> 
> 
> Nullification Doctrine, first expressed in Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 declaring Alien and Sedition Acts unconstitutional, is a legal theory that the Constitution is only a compact among states to delegate limited powers to a national government to deal with national affairs but not to interfere with the political, social, or economic structure or interests of the sovereign [self-governing] states.  Therefore, states can ultimately determine whether a federal law exceeds authority of the national government, declare it unconstitutional, and refuse to enforce it.  Jefferson drafted the resolutions, which advocate state rights and strict construction of Constitution.  Calhoun used this theory to justify the Ordinance of Nullification of federal tariff laws in SC in 1832.  Jackson responded with threat to deploy federal troops to enforce the law, stating that a state’s power to invalidate a federal law is inconsistent with the existence of a Union.  The Constitution forms a government, not a league of sovereign states; and to say that a state may at will secede from the Union is to say the US is not a nation. [Proclamation on Nullification]
> 
> 
> Confederate states adopted resolutions similar to Declaration of Independence to provide official justification for secession, comparing southern secession to the American Revolution. [Declarations of Secession]. These documents cite the Constitution [Art. IV] providing for return of fugitive slave.  Recognition of slavery was essential to forming’’ a more perfect union’’ for southern states.  South argued that northern anti-slave movement and failure to enforce fugitive slave provision justified secession.  Northern states granted freedom to fugitive slaves by law [using nullification theory as justification]; refused to enforce Fugitive Slave Act [fed military very small]; encouraged Underground Railroad.


They're prohibited from entering treaties, etc... only so long as they are parties to the Constitution. The Constitution does not forbid their seceding, so once they seceded and were no longer party to the Constitution that prohibition was no longer binding.

The U.S. was a federation of states, and was created by the states in the Constitution. Whether you say that makes the U.S. a nation or not is irrelevant.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Syriusly said:


> Horse girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually what I have read is that when the Southern states joined the union they also made it perfectly clear that they had the right to secede from the union. When Lincoln and company realized the economic damage this was gonna cause (icy ports for example and the ships having a hard time navigating the ports in winter) they wanted nothing more than the South back by any means necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you have read wrong.
Click to expand...

Actually that's absolutely correct. Virginia in particular was concerned about the new Constitution and only joined on the assurance that they could leave.


----------



## Syriusly

Horse girl said:


> How? By actually listening to the South's side of the story? Somehow I don't think the history books are telling the truth



Well here is the thing- there is no indication that you have told the 'South's side of the story.

For instance- Northern ports worked just fine- there were rare instances where New York/New Jersey would be blocked, but freight going to New York didn't got to Charleston instead.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Syriusly said:


> Horse girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> How? By actually listening to the South's side of the story? Somehow I don't think the history books are telling the truth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well here is the thing- there is no indication that you have told the 'South's side of the story.
> 
> For instance- Northern ports worked just fine- there were rare instances where New York/New Jersey would be blocked, but freight going to New York didn't got to Charleston instead.
Click to expand...

The issue, of course, was free trade. The south opposed high tariffs, whereas Lincoln and much of the north favored high tariffs. With an independent free trade Confederacy competing with a protectionist Union Lincoln knew there would be a huge loss for the Union. You'll note that one of Lincoln's first act was the blockade of the southern ports.


----------



## RandallFlagg

It must also be remembered that Lincoln ruled as a "King" during that period. he suspended laws, imprisioned newspaper editors and, (in his letter to Horace Greely) admitted that slavery had little to do with "saving the Union".

And we, as a nation, deify him to this day. I can't help but wonder if he were alive today, how the left would look at him now.....


----------

