Before 1860 secession was considered to be constitutional

[Cecilie1200]

It kinda does, "retard".

You don't win wars by being weak.

So black slaves deserved to be black slaves? Is that really what you're saying, retard?

I dont know why dont you read the confederate constitution where it says black people will always be slaves and inferior to their confederate white people. Paraphrasing of course.

It is sad your so ignorant of history that you idolized confederates who caused the deaths of more Americans then any war fought.

Perhaps you could give us the ACTUAL quote you consider so very important, rather than wasting our time citing your perception of it. And THEN perhaps you could tell us the relevance.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Occupying Fort Sumter was an act of war. Attempting to resupply it was another act of war. All you lying Lincoln cult members are trying desperately to ignore those facts. That shows you know the truth of the matter. You just don't give a fuck about the truth.

Jesus what the fuck did they teach you in history???? Sumter was always a union base.

What's that got to do with anything?

Per the Constitution South Carolina ceded the fort to the federal Government years before the civil war.it was not part of South Carolina.

 

[Votto]

Why can't states secede today?

Just because some states that seceded 150 years ago started a war with the U.S.?

I'm pretty sure if circumstances called for it a state could secede anytime now.

the states that seceded invaded the states that stayed in the union?

They fired the first shots. Guess it backfired.

The South did not invade the north, rather, the north picked a fight with the south.

So a southern soldier fired some shots on his own as northern soldiers came within shooting distance of them. Woopee!!! That happens in Chicago every hour on the hour and no one starts a war over it. In fact, no one cares. Unfortunately for them to care Zimmerman has to be at the other end of the gun or some other racially charged nonsense.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Conti and Cecelie1200 are delirious yet strangely fun to watch cavort and throwing poo around.

A wife has a right to a divorce under our law. The Constitution, a literal document, does not give a state the right to secede.

Fly, my monkeys, fly!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So black slaves deserved to be black slaves? Is that really what you're saying, retard?

I dont know why dont you read the confederate constitution where it says black people will always be slaves and inferior to their confederate white people. Paraphrasing of course.

It is sad your so ignorant of history that you idolized confederates who caused the deaths of more Americans then any war fought.

Perhaps you could give us the ACTUAL quote you consider so very important, rather than wasting our time citing your perception of it. And THEN perhaps you could tell us the relevance.

Every State that left the Union STATED in the letter announcing their leaving that the REASON they left was slavery. The Confederate States Constitution or what ever they called it stated that slavery was the law of the land.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Jesus what the fuck did they teach you in history???? Sumter was always a union base.

No it wasn't. The property was within the borders of South Carolina. That makes it Carolina territory. If a country tells the American government to remove it's troops from within its territory, then the American government had better do it. Otherwise its committing an act of war.

Let me get this right.... In your warped brain because a base was in South Carolina it was not a union base??????? Are you this retarded? Right now we have NO bases around the world right?

Actually, in his COMPLETELY CORRECT mind, the ownership of the territory on which a fort stands DOES have an impact on who the fort belongs to. As has been pointed out, just because the United States has military bases in other countries does not mean it is appropriate or legally justifiable for us to refuse to remove our personnel from them in the nation in question demands it. This would be viewed as an act of war against that country, and rightly so.

 

[numan]

'
I would be delighted if the region in which I live seceded from the Federal Union.

It would be heaven to escape the militaristic, totalitarian tyranny of America's ruling class, and the corrupt society they have engendered.

Unhappily, it is impossible -- if for no other reason that the web of financial obligations between region and tyrannical central power could never be disentangled in any reasonable way.

One must think of other methods to escape from tyranny and totalitarianism.

.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, it's just that sour grapes are being served at a lot of school lunches in some locations.

Apparently drugs that cause brain damage are being served where you eat lunch.

That might make it easier to tolerate reading your hysterical and absurdly futile attempts are re-'fighting' a war long over. The outcome is the same.

If you don't like the topic, what the fuck are you doing in the thread?

I just love people who join a thread simply to demand that everyone else there shut up on the subject.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No it wasn't. The property was within the borders of South Carolina. That makes it Carolina territory. If a country tells the American government to remove it's troops from within its territory, then the American government had better do it. Otherwise its committing an act of war.

Let me get this right.... In your warped brain because a base was in South Carolina it was not a union base??????? Are you this retarded? Right now we have NO bases around the world right?

Actually, in his COMPLETELY CORRECT mind, the ownership of the territory on which a fort stands DOES have an impact on who the fort belongs to. As has been pointed out, just because the United States has military bases in other countries does not mean it is appropriate or legally justifiable for us to refuse to remove our personnel from them in the nation in question demands it. This would be viewed as an act of war against that country, and rightly so.

The property belonged to the Federal Government it was BOUGHT by them years before the war.

 

[JakeStarkey]

the ownership of the territory on which a fort stands DOES have an impact on who the fort belongs to.

Not if the state ceded the land etc to the federal government almost fifty years earlier.

You need to study history instead of listening Glenn or whomever.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Someone must have me on ignore, someone quote me. The land was PURCHASED by the Federal Government. Long before the war.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Thats what people who dont want to worship slave owning assholes who started a war that killed more american then any other war? If there is something all Americans should feel shame about it is slavery AND the confederates states coming into existence because of slavery. I guess the confederates did do one thing thought... They showed we are a far stronger country together then apart.

Lincoln started the war. He turned this nation into an empire of subjects. You're obviously happy to be one.

Again he didn't. Confederates attacked Sumter an act of war because Lincoln would not allow slavery in the new territories... Thats history. that's truth. You need to stop listening to what ever the south will rise again redneck is telling you about it because he is dreadfully ignorant of facts.

The Confederate States of America fired on Fort Sumter IN RETALIATION for Lincoln's acts of war in refusing to vacate their lawful territory.

 

[JakeStarkey]

False, CeCelie1200.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Furthermore, the Constitution existed prior to the Civil War, numb nuts.

When did I say otherwise? Try reading more carefully.

I personally would love to see where it says in the constitution that government cannot stop states from seceding.

That would be the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the US Constitution.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

False, CeCelie1200.

Ask her if she has me on ignore.

 

[Contumacious]

Conti and Cecelie1200 are delirious yet strangely fun to watch cavort and throwing poo around.

A wife has a right to a divorce under our law. The Constitution, a literal document, does not give a state the right to secede.

Fly, my monkeys, fly!

определить по разделам статьи и п. Конституционный условии

For my Americans friends who do not fly monkeys

identify by article section and clause the Constitutional proviso

.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Conti and Cecelie1200 are delirious yet strangely fun to watch cavort and throwing poo around.

A wife has a right to a divorce under our law. The Constitution, a literal document, does not give a state the right to secede.

Fly, my monkeys, fly!

определить по разделам статьи и п. Конституционный условии

For my Americans friends who do not fly monkeys

identify by article section and clause the Constitutional proviso

.

Article 1 section 10.

Article IV the entire thing.

 

[candycorn]

The question (the many questions involved, in fact) has been settled for a long time now. Move on.

Amazingly enough, "We decided to believe this" does not equal "settled".

Amazingly, "we don't like this" by a very few whiners does not mean the issue "is not settled."

We are humoring the whiners, although it is settled. For a long, long time, whiners.

True; it's a dead issue. Again, I think it would be a cleansing process to have them try their luck with some of the bases in the South and see how much support they get from the standing military.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The preamble to the Constitution.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It clearly states a perfect union.

 

[Contumacious]

Conti and Cecelie1200 are delirious yet strangely fun to watch cavort and throwing poo around.

A wife has a right to a divorce under our law. The Constitution, a literal document, does not give a state the right to secede.

Fly, my monkeys, fly!

определить по разделам статьи и п. Конституционный условии

For my Americans friends who do not fly monkeys

identify by article section and clause the Constitutional proviso

.

Article IV the entire thing.

Article 1 section 10, CLAUSE ____________________?

Article 4



Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

The first section requires states to extend "full faith and credit" to the public acts, records and court proceedings of other states. Congress may regulate the manner in which proof of such acts, records or proceedings may be admitted.

In Mills v. Duryee, 1t1 U.S. (7 Cranch) 481 (1813), the United States Supreme Court ruled that the merits of a case, as settled by courts of one state, must be recognized by the courts of other states; state courts may not reopen cases which have been conclusively decided by the courts of another state.

Try again, maybe is the anti-secession clause, oh, wait that is the Communist Manifesto.

.