Before 1860 secession was considered to be constitutional

[bripat9643]

That's true; you're in no way the equal in intelligence to most of the human race; in that you have not evloved unlike nearly everyone else. That is your cross to burn...err I mean bear.

Candyass, you're one of the dimmest bulbs in this forum. Watching you castigating another forum member for their intelligence couldn't be more ironic.

So, according to you,

Dr. Condi Rice is inferior to any white person? This is the type of filth you're aligning yourself with. And you seem really proud of it.

Where have I said anything that even remotely implies that? You'll have to excuse me if I don't swallow your syllogism that anyone you don't like is stupid.

You should be ashamed for being as dumb as you are; taking your God given talents such as they are and doing so very little with them by claiming skin color makes one person superior and another inferior.

You really are a detestable piece of shit.

You're the one whose intelligence is in question here, and the examination doesn't reveal anything flattering. I have never claimed ones color makes one intelligent. In fact, AnCapAtheist hasn't even claimed that. If you weren't so busy putting words in other people's mouth's perhaps you wouldn't appear to be so damn stupid.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

This is for all you servile turds who believe the Constitution outlaws secession:

"During the weeks following the [1860] election, [Northern newspaper] editors of all parties assumed that secession as a constitutional right was not in question . . . . On the contrary, the southern claim to a right of peaceable withdrawal was countenanced out of reverence for the natural law principle of government by consent of the governed."

~ Howard Cecil Perkins, editor, Northern Editorials on Secession, p. 10

The first several generations of Americans understood that the Declaration of Independence was the ultimate states’ rights document. The citizens of the states would delegate certain powers to a central government in their Constitution, and these powers (mostly for national defense and foreign policy purposes) would hopefully be exercised for the benefit of the citizens of the "free and independent" states, as they are called in the Declaration.

The understanding was that if American citizens were in fact to be the masters rather than the servants of government, they themselves would have to police the national government that was created by them for their mutual benefit. If the day ever came that the national government became the sole arbiter of the limits of its own powers, then Americans would live under a tyranny as bad or worse than the one the colonists fought a revolution against. As the above quotation denotes, the ultimate natural law principle behind this thinking was Jefferson’s famous dictum in the Declaration of Independence that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that whenever that consent is withdrawn the people of the free and independent states, as sovereigns, have a duty to abolish that government and replace it with a new one if they wish.

This was the fundamental understanding of the meaning of the Declaration of Independence – that it was a Declaration of Secession from the British empire – of the first several generations of Americans. As the 1, 107-page book, Northern Editorials on Secession shows, this view was held just as widely in the Northern states as in the Southern states in 1860-1861. Among the lone dissenters was Abe Lincoln, a corporate lawyer/lobbyist/politician with less than a year of formal education who probably never even read The Federalist Papers.​

What Americans Used To Know About the Declaration of Independence by Thomas DiLorenzo

The Articles of Confederation established a perpetual union.

True, but it only included the Union of the 13 colonies. Even those that argue about a "more perfect union" being grounds for the illegality of secession are grasping at straws considiner that "perfect" is an opinion. Even though the Union is supposed to be "perfect" doesn't mean that all 50 states have to remain members.

It is difficult to argue that a perpetual union is made "more perfect union" by making it not perpetual. You'd have to redefine what the words "union" and "perpetual" mean.

Your argument that it only applies to the original 13 is absurd. Do the Bill of Rights also apply only to the original 13?

With the same logic we could assume that no other states would be allowed to join because it would mess up the "perfection" of the Union already created.

Sure .... except that both the union established by the Articles of Confederation and by the Constitution allowed for the addition of members.

Furthermore, the Constitution doesn't establish what a "more perfect union" is.

Its more perfect than the union under the Articles. If the union under the articles is perpetual then so is the union under the Constitution.

 

[regent]

The Declaration of Independence is a great document, but its purpose was as any propaganda, to persuade. At the time, the colonists were more interested in the criticism of the king than the enlightenment philosophy from the Age of Reason. Later the it will be the ideas from Locke that make the Declaration the document it is.
At the time formal logic was required in many universities and Jefferson wrote the Declaration as a formal argument in logic, and I wonder if it was just a natural argument for him to make or did he plan it so?

 

[candycorn]

Candyass, you're one of the dimmest bulbs in this forum. Watching you castigating another forum member for their intelligence couldn't be more ironic.

So, according to you,

Dr. Condi Rice is inferior to any white person? This is the type of filth you're aligning yourself with. And you seem really proud of it.

Where have I said anything that even remotely implies that? You'll have to excuse me if I don't swallow your syllogism that anyone you don't lie is stupid.

Amcap did by saying negros are inferior to whites. You do agree with him, yes or no?

 

[bripat9643]

Furthermore, the Constitution doesn't establish what a "more perfect union" is.

Its more perfect than the union under the Articles. If the union under the articles is perpetual then so is the union under the Constitution.

The union under the Articles of Confederation obviously wasn't perpetual because the Founding Fathers threw the Articles into the waste bin. If it was perpetual then the Articles would still be in force.

 

[bripat9643]

So, according to you,

Dr. Condi Rice is inferior to any white person? This is the type of filth you're aligning yourself with. And you seem really proud of it.

Where have I said anything that even remotely implies that? You'll have to excuse me if I don't swallow your syllogism that anyone you don't lie is stupid.

Amcap did by saying negros are inferior to whites. You do agree with him, yes or no?

In other words, I never said any such thing. You lied.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Furthermore, the Constitution doesn't establish what a "more perfect union" is.

Its more perfect than the union under the Articles. If the union under the articles is perpetual then so is the union under the Constitution.

The union under the Articles of Confederation obviously wasn't perpetual because the Founding Fathers threw the Articles into the waste bin. If it was perpetual then the Articles would still be in force.

Completely untrue. The U.S. Constitution is the legal continuation of the Articles as it was written and passed under authority of the Articles - and once the Constitution had been accepted, it was the Congress under the Articles that legally set the new government in motion. If you read the Constitution, nowhere does it say "and the first election ever for Congress shall be held on such and such a day" - that date was set by the Legislature under the Articles of Confederation, so to claim that the Articles were entirely rendered null would be to claim the very laws that set the new Constitution in motion were also null.

 

[thanatos144]

Furthermore, the Constitution doesn't establish what a "more perfect union" is.

Its more perfect than the union under the Articles. If the union under the articles is perpetual then so is the union under the Constitution.

The union under the Articles of Confederation obviously wasn't perpetual because the Founding Fathers threw the Articles into the waste bin. If it was perpetual then the Articles would still be in force.

Your dumbass does know that the constitution was RATIFIED by all states right?

 

[NYcarbineer]

One thing we know: he's smarter than you.

He believes there shouldn't be any government whatsoever. Is that smart?

Depends on if you enjoy being treated like someone's slave or not...Anarchist societies have existed many times....worked just fine.

1. Name them.

2. If you can name any, proving both that they were anarchist, and successful,

show us how it would be practical to transport their nature into our current society.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Articles of Confederation established a perpetual union.

True, but it only included the Union of the 13 colonies. Even those that argue about a "more perfect union" being grounds for the illegality of secession are grasping at straws considiner that "perfect" is an opinion. Even though the Union is supposed to be "perfect" doesn't mean that all 50 states have to remain members.

It is difficult to argue that a perpetual union is made "more perfect union" by making it not perpetual. You'd have to redefine what the words "union" and "perpetual" mean.

Your argument that it only applies to the original 13 is absurd. Do the Bill of Rights also apply only to the original 13?

With the same logic we could assume that no other states would be allowed to join because it would mess up the "perfection" of the Union already created.

Sure .... except that both the union established by the Articles of Confederation and by the Constitution allowed for the addition of members.

Furthermore, the Constitution doesn't establish what a "more perfect union" is.

Its more perfect than the union under the Articles. If the union under the articles is perpetual then so is the union under the Constitution.

Ask oneself this:

Did the transformation of the Articles of Confederation into the US Constitution involve, on balance,

more power given to the central, federal government, or less?

Then, considering that the stated intent of creating the US Constitution was to form 'a more perfect union',

was that being done with an eye to increasing central, federal power, or decreasing it?

In short,

was a Union more perfect than that under the Articles meant to be a Union with more or less power concentrated at the federal level?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Furthermore, the Constitution doesn't establish what a "more perfect union" is.

Its more perfect than the union under the Articles. If the union under the articles is perpetual then so is the union under the Constitution.

The union under the Articles of Confederation obviously wasn't perpetual because the Founding Fathers threw the Articles into the waste bin. If it was perpetual then the Articles would still be in force.

Did the Union remain intact with the replacing of the Articles with the Constitution?

Yes.

Is the Union still intact?

Yes

Did the Constitution end the Union described as perpetual in the Articles?

No

Was the principle of a perpetual Union explicitly or even implicitly abandoned when the Constitution replaced the Articles?

No

When Lincoln thus interpreted his constitutional duty to be to maintain the perpetuity of the union - in accordance with his oath to protect and defend the Constitution -

was his interpretation contrary to the founding principles of the nation, as expressed in the Articles, and maintained in the Constitution?

No.

 

[National Socialist]

He believes there shouldn't be any government whatsoever. Is that smart?

Depends on if you enjoy being treated like someone's slave or not...Anarchist societies have existed many times....worked just fine.

1. Name them.

2. If you can name any, proving both that they were anarchist, and successful,

show us how it would be practical to transport their nature into our current society.

List of anarchist communities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
The 2nd one ya gotta scroll down. Might even learn more about what I believe in.

 

[Ravi]

Depends on if you enjoy being treated like someone's slave or not...Anarchist societies have existed many times....worked just fine.

1. Name them.

2. If you can name any, proving both that they were anarchist, and successful,

show us how it would be practical to transport their nature into our current society.

List of anarchist communities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
The 2nd one ya gotta scroll down. Might even learn more about what I believe in.

Hysterical! A small collection of COMMUNITIES living within the safety of the state. Most of them sound more communist than anarchist. LOL! I guess that nudist colony down the road from me is an anarchist utopia.

 

[thanatos144]

Depends on if you enjoy being treated like someone's slave or not...Anarchist societies have existed many times....worked just fine.

1. Name them.

2. If you can name any, proving both that they were anarchist, and successful,

show us how it would be practical to transport their nature into our current society.

List of anarchist communities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
The 2nd one ya gotta scroll down. Might even learn more about what I believe in.

Anarchy is a joke and a tool of the socialist.....

 

[candycorn]

Where have I said anything that even remotely implies that? You'll have to excuse me if I don't swallow your syllogism that anyone you don't lie is stupid.

Amcap did by saying negros are inferior to whites. You do agree with him, yes or no?

In other words, I never said any such thing. You lied.

If you agree with someone who says the sky is green; you're saying the sky is green.

If Amcap says negros are inferior to whites (e.g. Dr. Rice who is negro being inferior to Nancy Pelosi who is white) and you agree with him; you're saying negros are inferior to whites.

Now you can tell us that Amcap is full of shit on this but since he's basically your only friend in the entire world at this point, we know you won't say that....

So what you will do is likely try to rationalize it by using "some". Basically a cop out for a "man" who lost face a long time ago.

 

[National Socialist]

Dumbass still can't get my name right lol...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Depends on if you enjoy being treated like someone's slave or not...Anarchist societies have existed many times....worked just fine.

1. Name them.

2. If you can name any, proving both that they were anarchist, and successful,

show us how it would be practical to transport their nature into our current society.

List of anarchist communities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
The 2nd one ya gotta scroll down. Might even learn more about what I believe in.

So in a very general sense, are you a capitalist or a communist?

 

[National Socialist]

Capitalist. That's why its called Anarcho Capitalism.

 

[numan]

The Declaration of Independence is a great document, but its purpose was as any propaganda, to persuade. At the time, the colonists were more interested in the criticism of the king than the enlightenment philosophy from the Age of Reason. Later the it will be the ideas from Locke that make the Declaration the document it is.

You are quite right -- except in calling that tissue of twaddle "a great document."

At the time formal logic was required in many universities and Jefferson wrote the Declaration as a formal argument in logic, and I wonder if it was just a natural argument for him to make or did he plan it so?

Yes, it is a formal argument, with false and lying premises of the crudest sort.

.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

True, but it only included the Union of the 13 colonies. Even those that argue about a "more perfect union" being grounds for the illegality of secession are grasping at straws considiner that "perfect" is an opinion. Even though the Union is supposed to be "perfect" doesn't mean that all 50 states have to remain members.

It is difficult to argue that a perpetual union is made "more perfect union" by making it not perpetual. You'd have to redefine what the words "union" and "perpetual" mean.

Your argument that it only applies to the original 13 is absurd. Do the Bill of Rights also apply only to the original 13?

Sure .... except that both the union established by the Articles of Confederation and by the Constitution allowed for the addition of members.

Furthermore, the Constitution doesn't establish what a "more perfect union" is.

Its more perfect than the union under the Articles. If the union under the articles is perpetual then so is the union under the Constitution.

Ask oneself this:

Did the transformation of the Articles of Confederation into the US Constitution involve, on balance,

more power given to the central, federal government, or less?

Then, considering that the stated intent of creating the US Constitution was to form 'a more perfect union',

was that being done with an eye to increasing central, federal power, or decreasing it?

In short,

was a Union more perfect than that under the Articles meant to be a Union with more or less power concentrated at the federal level?

The Constitution quite clearly gives more power to the central government than the Articles.