Confederate constitution legalized slavery

[RKMBrown]

Why deflect to "my pride?" What proof do you have of your claims that every single fighter in the south fought the war to defend the practice of slavery and not to defend their homes states and families.

Youve grown boring with your deflections. Its not even fun laughing at you now. You do this everytime i embarrass you.

Yeah just keep deflecting away from your idiotic opinion that the south did not fight to defend themselves.

The south fought to defend themselves from losing slavery. There is no defending that and thats why they got their asses kicked.

Incorrect. The "people" in the south fought to defend themselves being being killed by the people from the north, and the mercenaries from Europe. Some of the people in the south may have had a desire to keep their slaves, but that would be a very very small portion of the people in the south, further, it was legal to keep slaves in the north and the south. So your accusation is ludicrous.

Incorrect. The large majority of people in the south and all of the confederates had a vested interest in continuing slavery regardless of if they owned a slave or not. They would not have gotten their asses kicked had they merely conceded slavery was over. In that light your assertion is moronic.

Nonsense the majority of the people in the south were slaves. Why would they have a vested interest in continuing slavery? Are you actually saying blacks were better off as slaves?


What makes you think the north would have allowed the south to secede had they ended slavery?

 

[Ravi]

Youve grown boring with your deflections. Its not even fun laughing at you now. You do this everytime i embarrass you.

Yeah just keep deflecting away from your idiotic opinion that the south did not fight to defend themselves.

The south fought to defend themselves from losing slavery. There is no defending that and thats why they got their asses kicked.

Incorrect. The "people" in the south fought to defend themselves being being killed by the people from the north, and the mercenaries from Europe. Some of the people in the south may have had a desire to keep their slaves, but that would be a very very small portion of the people in the south, further, it was legal to keep slaves in the north and the south. So your accusation is ludicrous.

Incorrect. The large majority of people in the south and all of the confederates had a vested interest in continuing slavery regardless of if they owned a slave or not. They would not have gotten their asses kicked had they merely conceded slavery was over. In that light your assertion is moronic.

Nonsense the majority of the people in the south were slaves. Why would they have a vested interest in continuing slavery? Are you actually saying blacks were better off as slaves?


What makes you think the north would have allowed the south to secede had they ended slavery?

The majority were not slaves:

1860 - U.S. Census. U.S. population: 31,443,321. Total number of slaves in the Lower South : 2,312,352 (47% of total population). Total number of slaves in the Upper South: 1,208758 (29% of total population).

 

[RKMBrown]

Yeah just keep deflecting away from your idiotic opinion that the south did not fight to defend themselves.

The south fought to defend themselves from losing slavery. There is no defending that and thats why they got their asses kicked.

Incorrect. The "people" in the south fought to defend themselves being being killed by the people from the north, and the mercenaries from Europe. Some of the people in the south may have had a desire to keep their slaves, but that would be a very very small portion of the people in the south, further, it was legal to keep slaves in the north and the south. So your accusation is ludicrous.

Incorrect. The large majority of people in the south and all of the confederates had a vested interest in continuing slavery regardless of if they owned a slave or not. They would not have gotten their asses kicked had they merely conceded slavery was over. In that light your assertion is moronic.

Nonsense the majority of the people in the south were slaves. Why would they have a vested interest in continuing slavery? Are you actually saying blacks were better off as slaves?


What makes you think the north would have allowed the south to secede had they ended slavery?

The majority were not slaves:

1860 - U.S. Census. U.S. population: 31,443,321. Total number of slaves in the Lower South : 2,312,352 (47% of total population). Total number of slaves in the Upper South: 1,208758 (29% of total population).

Thx for the clarification.

 

[Asclepias]

Youve grown boring with your deflections. Its not even fun laughing at you now. You do this everytime i embarrass you.

Yeah just keep deflecting away from your idiotic opinion that the south did not fight to defend themselves.

The south fought to defend themselves from losing slavery. There is no defending that and thats why they got their asses kicked.

Incorrect. The "people" in the south fought to defend themselves being being killed by the people from the north, and the mercenaries from Europe. Some of the people in the south may have had a desire to keep their slaves, but that would be a very very small portion of the people in the south, further, it was legal to keep slaves in the north and the south. So your accusation is ludicrous.

Incorrect. The large majority of people in the south and all of the confederates had a vested interest in continuing slavery regardless of if they owned a slave or not. They would not have gotten their asses kicked had they merely conceded slavery was over. In that light your assertion is moronic.

Nonsense the majority of the people in the south were slaves. Why would they have a vested interest in continuing slavery? Are you actually saying blacks were better off as slaves?


What makes you think the north would have allowed the south to secede had they ended slavery?

You forgot that Blacks were not considered people hence the whites desire to see them enslaved. Then again you probably knew that already and needed to deflect once more from the issue with another wild goose chase you are famous for when embarrassed at your logic being exposed.

The south didnt have permission to secede. I already pointed that out. The point is that they attempted to do so over slavery and subsequently fought a war over it.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yeah just keep deflecting away from your idiotic opinion that the south did not fight to defend themselves.

The south fought to defend themselves from losing slavery. There is no defending that and thats why they got their asses kicked.

Incorrect. The "people" in the south fought to defend themselves being being killed by the people from the north, and the mercenaries from Europe. Some of the people in the south may have had a desire to keep their slaves, but that would be a very very small portion of the people in the south, further, it was legal to keep slaves in the north and the south. So your accusation is ludicrous.

Incorrect. The large majority of people in the south and all of the confederates had a vested interest in continuing slavery regardless of if they owned a slave or not. They would not have gotten their asses kicked had they merely conceded slavery was over. In that light your assertion is moronic.

Nonsense the majority of the people in the south were slaves. Why would they have a vested interest in continuing slavery? Are you actually saying blacks were better off as slaves?


What makes you think the north would have allowed the south to secede had they ended slavery?

You forgot that Blacks were not considered people hence the whites desire to see them enslaved. Then again you probably knew that already and needed to deflect once more from the issue with another wild goose chase you are famous for when embarrassed at your logic being exposed.

The south didnt have permission to secede. I already pointed that out. The point is that they did so over slavery and subsequently fought a war over it.

Oh I see so when you say people you mean white people. Got it. Rolls eyes. So what do you call black people? sub-humans?

 

[Asclepias]

The south fought to defend themselves from losing slavery. There is no defending that and thats why they got their asses kicked.

Incorrect. The "people" in the south fought to defend themselves being being killed by the people from the north, and the mercenaries from Europe. Some of the people in the south may have had a desire to keep their slaves, but that would be a very very small portion of the people in the south, further, it was legal to keep slaves in the north and the south. So your accusation is ludicrous.

Incorrect. The large majority of people in the south and all of the confederates had a vested interest in continuing slavery regardless of if they owned a slave or not. They would not have gotten their asses kicked had they merely conceded slavery was over. In that light your assertion is moronic.

Nonsense the majority of the people in the south were slaves. Why would they have a vested interest in continuing slavery? Are you actually saying blacks were better off as slaves?


What makes you think the north would have allowed the south to secede had they ended slavery?

You forgot that Blacks were not considered people hence the whites desire to see them enslaved. Then again you probably knew that already and needed to deflect once more from the issue with another wild goose chase you are famous for when embarrassed at your logic being exposed.

The south didnt have permission to secede. I already pointed that out. The point is that they did so over slavery and subsequently fought a war over it.

Oh I see so when you say people you mean white people. Got it. Rolls eyes. So what do you call black people? sub-humans?

Exactly. when I said people I was referring to white people. I call Black people kings and queens.

 

[RKMBrown]

Incorrect. The "people" in the south fought to defend themselves being being killed by the people from the north, and the mercenaries from Europe. Some of the people in the south may have had a desire to keep their slaves, but that would be a very very small portion of the people in the south, further, it was legal to keep slaves in the north and the south. So your accusation is ludicrous.

Incorrect. The large majority of people in the south and all of the confederates had a vested interest in continuing slavery regardless of if they owned a slave or not. They would not have gotten their asses kicked had they merely conceded slavery was over. In that light your assertion is moronic.

Nonsense the majority of the people in the south were slaves. Why would they have a vested interest in continuing slavery? Are you actually saying blacks were better off as slaves?


What makes you think the north would have allowed the south to secede had they ended slavery?

You forgot that Blacks were not considered people hence the whites desire to see them enslaved. Then again you probably knew that already and needed to deflect once more from the issue with another wild goose chase you are famous for when embarrassed at your logic being exposed.

The south didnt have permission to secede. I already pointed that out. The point is that they did so over slavery and subsequently fought a war over it.

Oh I see so when you say people you mean white people. Got it. Rolls eyes. So what do you call black people? sub-humans?

Exactly. when I said people I was referring to white people. I call Black people kings and queens.

Rest my case.

 

[Asclepias]

Incorrect. The large majority of people in the south and all of the confederates had a vested interest in continuing slavery regardless of if they owned a slave or not. They would not have gotten their asses kicked had they merely conceded slavery was over. In that light your assertion is moronic.

Nonsense the majority of the people in the south were slaves. Why would they have a vested interest in continuing slavery? Are you actually saying blacks were better off as slaves?


What makes you think the north would have allowed the south to secede had they ended slavery?

You forgot that Blacks were not considered people hence the whites desire to see them enslaved. Then again you probably knew that already and needed to deflect once more from the issue with another wild goose chase you are famous for when embarrassed at your logic being exposed.

The south didnt have permission to secede. I already pointed that out. The point is that they did so over slavery and subsequently fought a war over it.

Oh I see so when you say people you mean white people. Got it. Rolls eyes. So what do you call black people? sub-humans?

Exactly. when I said people I was referring to white people. I call Black people kings and queens.

Rest my case.

I humbly accept your concession.

 

[RKMBrown]

Nonsense the majority of the people in the south were slaves. Why would they have a vested interest in continuing slavery? Are you actually saying blacks were better off as slaves?


What makes you think the north would have allowed the south to secede had they ended slavery?

You forgot that Blacks were not considered people hence the whites desire to see them enslaved. Then again you probably knew that already and needed to deflect once more from the issue with another wild goose chase you are famous for when embarrassed at your logic being exposed.

The south didnt have permission to secede. I already pointed that out. The point is that they did so over slavery and subsequently fought a war over it.

Oh I see so when you say people you mean white people. Got it. Rolls eyes. So what do you call black people? sub-humans?

Exactly. when I said people I was referring to white people. I call Black people kings and queens.

Rest my case.

I humbly accept your concession.

Lying POS.

 

[James Everett]

You state.....
Logically? You werent allowed to secede from the US for starters. No one gave you permission and thats why you got your ass kicked.

Oh, so now you admit that the war was over the right of secession?

Now please by all means cite the Law that states that secession is illegal or unlawful.
If there was no law against secession, then clearly in the absence of a law, something is legal, hence Lincoln and YOUR Yankee ancestors were in rebellion to the lawful authority of YOUR CONstitutions tenth amendment.
Even YOUR COMRADE Paperview has stated that since YOUR U.S. CONstitution did not state that Slavery was illegal, then clearly Slavery was legal in the U.S.
Such would also apply to secession.
As for gettin my ass kicked....
I was not around, and I would say that hundreds of thousands of DEAD YANKEE SOLDIERS GOT THEIR "ASS KICKED", AS THEIR LIVES WERE ENDED IN THAT WAR, WHICH YOU REFER TO ASS SOME SORT OF ASS KICKING.

I admit the Union kicked your ass over secession. The losers fought over slavery.

So now you have changed your position? Earlier you stated that YOUR government was fighting to end Slavery, now they were fighting in order that they may force a tyranny much the same as Russia did under the former Soviet Union where it to was held together by force.

Never changed my position. You got your ass kicked over seceding without permission and so the north could take away your means of generating wealth with slaves. Read a history book.

Please cite the article and section in YOUR CONstitution that states that a Southern State, or any other must request permission from the North to secede.
You are further making a fool of yourself.

Youre the only one making a fool of himself. I am amazed you are this uneducated. Please show me in the constitution, (the real one) where it states that any state has a right to secede. I'll wait.

article i section 10 of the u.s. constitution

Article One of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;...."

I trust your wait wasn't to long.
Allow me to educate you.....
YOUR U.S. CONstitution never addressed secession, hence the power to prevent a State from seceding from the union was never delegated to the U.S. (The States in union collectively) to prevent a State from exercising it's retained power power to sever its ties with the other States. This retained power is addressed in YOUR tenth amendment.
Article I section 10, addresses the States within the union denying them as individual States to establish an alliance with another, but as any idiot should be able to ascertain, there was no law preventing a State from seceding, that power was reserved by each individual State, therefore once a State seceded it was no longer bound by article I Section 10 or any other part of YOUR CONstitution. You see you are to ignorant to understand that the first cause, which was legal, nullified the second cause to which you refer.
You can't help but continue to make a fool of yourself can you?
You are in way above your education.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.

The United States Constitution "legalized" slavery as well. Was the Revolutionary War about slavery too? The fact that many of the Confederate states seceded over the threat to the spread of slavery that they perceived from Lincoln and the Republican Party is well documented, but what people mean when they say the Civil War wasn't fought over slavery is that Lincoln waged the war not to free the slaves but to force those states back into the Union. If his goal was to free the slaves then the Emancipation Proclamation would have applied to the states that remained in the Union as well as the Confederate states. Furthermore, slavery was not the only issue that caused those states to secede. Tariffs were also an issue, as Lincoln campaigned on raising the tariff and did exactly that after taking office, as Jefferson Davis's inaugural address makes clear. Also, Virginia did not secede until after Lincoln put his blockade of southern ports into effect. To say that the Civil War was fought over slavery is far too simplistic.

 

[Asclepias]

I admit the Union kicked your ass over secession. The losers fought over slavery.

So now you have changed your position? Earlier you stated that YOUR government was fighting to end Slavery, now they were fighting in order that they may force a tyranny much the same as Russia did under the former Soviet Union where it to was held together by force.

Never changed my position. You got your ass kicked over seceding without permission and so the north could take away your means of generating wealth with slaves. Read a history book.

Please cite the article and section in YOUR CONstitution that states that a Southern State, or any other must request permission from the North to secede.
You are further making a fool of yourself.

Youre the only one making a fool of himself. I am amazed you are this uneducated. Please show me in the constitution, (the real one) where it states that any state has a right to secede. I'll wait.

article i section 10 of the u.s. constitution

Article One of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;...."

I trust your wait wasn't to long.
Allow me to educate you.....
YOUR U.S. CONstitution never addressed secession, hence the power to prevent a State from seceding from the union was never delegated to the U.S. (The States in union collectively) to prevent a State from exercising it's retained power power to sever its ties with the other States. This retained power is addressed in YOUR tenth amendment.
Article I section 10, addresses the States within the union denying them as individual States to establish an alliance with another, but as any idiot should be able to ascertain, there was no law preventing a State from seceding, that power was reserved by each individual State, therefore once a State seceded it was no longer bound by article I Section 10 or any other part of YOUR CONstitution. You see you are to ignorant to understand that the first cause, which was legal, nullified the second cause to which you refer.
You can't help but continue to make a fool of yourself can you?
You are in way above your education.

Yeah actually it did.

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;...."

 

[James Everett]

So now you have changed your position? Earlier you stated that YOUR government was fighting to end Slavery, now they were fighting in order that they may force a tyranny much the same as Russia did under the former Soviet Union where it to was held together by force.

Never changed my position. You got your ass kicked over seceding without permission and so the north could take away your means of generating wealth with slaves. Read a history book.

Please cite the article and section in YOUR CONstitution that states that a Southern State, or any other must request permission from the North to secede.
You are further making a fool of yourself.

Youre the only one making a fool of himself. I am amazed you are this uneducated. Please show me in the constitution, (the real one) where it states that any state has a right to secede. I'll wait.

article i section 10 of the u.s. constitution

Article One of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;...."

I trust your wait wasn't to long.
Allow me to educate you.....
YOUR U.S. CONstitution never addressed secession, hence the power to prevent a State from seceding from the union was never delegated to the U.S. (The States in union collectively) to prevent a State from exercising it's retained power power to sever its ties with the other States. This retained power is addressed in YOUR tenth amendment.
Article I section 10, addresses the States within the union denying them as individual States to establish an alliance with another, but as any idiot should be able to ascertain, there was no law preventing a State from seceding, that power was reserved by each individual State, therefore once a State seceded it was no longer bound by article I Section 10 or any other part of YOUR CONstitution. You see you are to ignorant to understand that the first cause, which was legal, nullified the second cause to which you refer.
You can't help but continue to make a fool of yourself can you?
You are in way above your education.

Yeah actually it did.

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;...."

Secession was accomplished, hence your CONstitution no longer applied to States that were no longer part of YOUR union. Please stop being ignorant and refer to the first cause. Think secession wasn't accomplished?
Then explain re-admittance and conditions for such if they were not indeed severed from YOUR union. Educate yourself so that you don't continue making a bigger fool of yourself.

 

[James Everett]

So now you have changed your position? Earlier you stated that YOUR government was fighting to end Slavery, now they were fighting in order that they may force a tyranny much the same as Russia did under the former Soviet Union where it to was held together by force.

Never changed my position. You got your ass kicked over seceding without permission and so the north could take away your means of generating wealth with slaves. Read a history book.

Please cite the article and section in YOUR CONstitution that states that a Southern State, or any other must request permission from the North to secede.
You are further making a fool of yourself.

Youre the only one making a fool of himself. I am amazed you are this uneducated. Please show me in the constitution, (the real one) where it states that any state has a right to secede. I'll wait.

article i section 10 of the u.s. constitution

Article One of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;...."

I trust your wait wasn't to long.
Allow me to educate you.....
YOUR U.S. CONstitution never addressed secession, hence the power to prevent a State from seceding from the union was never delegated to the U.S. (The States in union collectively) to prevent a State from exercising it's retained power power to sever its ties with the other States. This retained power is addressed in YOUR tenth amendment.
Article I section 10, addresses the States within the union denying them as individual States to establish an alliance with another, but as any idiot should be able to ascertain, there was no law preventing a State from seceding, that power was reserved by each individual State, therefore once a State seceded it was no longer bound by article I Section 10 or any other part of YOUR CONstitution. You see you are to ignorant to understand that the first cause, which was legal, nullified the second cause to which you refer.
You can't help but continue to make a fool of yourself can you?
You are in way above your education.

Yeah actually it did.

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;...."

Most likely it is your inability to grasp the first cause to which I continue to direct you to, and that is that the States that seceded did so each individually, and it was not until after they had seceded that the established a new treaty/alliance between themselves in the form of the 1862 CSA Constitution. They at that point were no longer party to the 1787/1789 treaty.

 

[Asclepias]

Never changed my position. You got your ass kicked over seceding without permission and so the north could take away your means of generating wealth with slaves. Read a history book.

Please cite the article and section in YOUR CONstitution that states that a Southern State, or any other must request permission from the North to secede.
You are further making a fool of yourself.

Youre the only one making a fool of himself. I am amazed you are this uneducated. Please show me in the constitution, (the real one) where it states that any state has a right to secede. I'll wait.

article i section 10 of the u.s. constitution

Article One of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;...."

I trust your wait wasn't to long.
Allow me to educate you.....
YOUR U.S. CONstitution never addressed secession, hence the power to prevent a State from seceding from the union was never delegated to the U.S. (The States in union collectively) to prevent a State from exercising it's retained power power to sever its ties with the other States. This retained power is addressed in YOUR tenth amendment.
Article I section 10, addresses the States within the union denying them as individual States to establish an alliance with another, but as any idiot should be able to ascertain, there was no law preventing a State from seceding, that power was reserved by each individual State, therefore once a State seceded it was no longer bound by article I Section 10 or any other part of YOUR CONstitution. You see you are to ignorant to understand that the first cause, which was legal, nullified the second cause to which you refer.
You can't help but continue to make a fool of yourself can you?
You are in way above your education.

Yeah actually it did.

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;...."

Most likely it is your inability to grasp the first cause to which I continue to direct you to, and that is that the States that seceded did so each individually, and it was not until after they had seceded that the established a new treaty/alliance between themselves in the form of the 1862 CSA Constitution. They at that point were no longer party to the 1787/1789 treaty.

They couldnt even do it individually without permission. The only way to legally do it was through revolution and since you lost the war you didnt have permission for individual states to secede. Sorry you lose. We even have SCOTUS case history to support the argument against your continued ignorance.

Secession in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"Chase, [Chief Justice], ruled in favor of Texas on the ground that the Confederate state government in Texas had no legal existence on the basis that the secession of Texas from the United States was illegal. The critical finding underpinning the ruling that Texas could not secede from the United States was that, following its admission to the United States in 1845, Texas had become part of "an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states." In practical terms, this meant that Texas has never seceded from the United States."

 

[whitehall]

Slavery existed for about two hundred years before the states that formed the "confederacy" ever left the union. Lincoln went along with slavery as long as it didn't extend into the new territories. New Jersey was the last yankee state to outlaw slavery because the Garden State enjoyed it's cheap labor up to ten years before the Civil War. Most Confederate soldiers never owned any more slaves than the families of union soldiers. Why dig up the race card 150+plus years after the Civil War? To promote more hatred?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Both paperview and I have provided the Cornerstone speech that crushs James' specious argument fo evah, homies.

 

[James Everett]

Both paperview and I have provided the Cornerstone speech that crushs James' specious argument fo evah, homies.

Oh apparently JAKE, your sweetheart Paperview has ran away yet again, as she never addressed my last post.

 

[James Everett]

Please cite the article and section in YOUR CONstitution that states that a Southern State, or any other must request permission from the North to secede.
You are further making a fool of yourself.

Youre the only one making a fool of himself. I am amazed you are this uneducated. Please show me in the constitution, (the real one) where it states that any state has a right to secede. I'll wait.

article i section 10 of the u.s. constitution

Article One of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;...."

I trust your wait wasn't to long.
Allow me to educate you.....
YOUR U.S. CONstitution never addressed secession, hence the power to prevent a State from seceding from the union was never delegated to the U.S. (The States in union collectively) to prevent a State from exercising it's retained power power to sever its ties with the other States. This retained power is addressed in YOUR tenth amendment.
Article I section 10, addresses the States within the union denying them as individual States to establish an alliance with another, but as any idiot should be able to ascertain, there was no law preventing a State from seceding, that power was reserved by each individual State, therefore once a State seceded it was no longer bound by article I Section 10 or any other part of YOUR CONstitution. You see you are to ignorant to understand that the first cause, which was legal, nullified the second cause to which you refer.
You can't help but continue to make a fool of yourself can you?
You are in way above your education.

Yeah actually it did.

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;...."

Most likely it is your inability to grasp the first cause to which I continue to direct you to, and that is that the States that seceded did so each individually, and it was not until after they had seceded that the established a new treaty/alliance between themselves in the form of the 1862 CSA Constitution. They at that point were no longer party to the 1787/1789 treaty.

They couldnt even do it individually without permission. The only way to legally do it was through revolution and since you lost the war you didnt have permission for individual states to secede. Sorry you lose. We even have SCOTUS case history to support the argument against your continued ignorance.

Secession in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"Chase, [Chief Justice], ruled in favor of Texas on the ground that the Confederate state government in Texas had no legal existence on the basis that the secession of Texas from the United States was illegal. The critical finding underpinning the ruling that Texas could not secede from the United States was that, following its admission to the United States in 1845, Texas had become part of "an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states." In practical terms, this meant that Texas has never seceded from the United States."

Oh, another base indoctrinated Yankee posting Texas v White.
The gullible indoctrinated Yankee is always drawn in and sacrificed on the alter because of these pseudo intellectual Yankees who think Texas v White somehow decided the issue of secession, and here we have another sacrificial lamb.
Lets begin educating a fool.....
Texas v White was not a case over secession: it was a case concerning U.S. Bonds.
Do you know the definition of DICTA?

"Expressions in a court's opinion that go beyond the facts before the court and therefore are individual views of the author of the opinion and not binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent."

It is therefore unreasonable to claim this issue was “decided” when the arguments presented by the parties to the case did not address the right of States to secede. Without the opportunity for argument, debate, and rebuttal on the issue, it cannot be said that this issue was “decided” when a very partisan Chief Justice took the occasion to insert his opinion on a question that was not argued before the Court.
The opinion in Texas v White sets NO LEGAL precedent.

SCOTUS Justice Salmon Chase A YANKEE from Ohio who was Ole Abe Lincolns treasury secretary, A Yankee Senator from Ohio, Could not hardly be considered an unbiased Justice, In fact each Justice was a U.S. Justice....
Chief Justice S.P. Chase of Ohio, a Lincoln appointee, delivered the opinion. Other associate justices and appointing presidents were Samuel Nelson, New York (Tyler); R.C. Grier, Pennsylvania (Polk); N. Clifford, Maine (Buchanan); N.H. Swayne, Ohio (Lincoln); S.F. Miller, Iowa (Lincoln); David Davis, Illinois (Lincoln) and S. J. Field, California (Lincoln).
NOT one could be said to be non-biased, such is akin to having G Gordon Liddy act as Vice President and President of the Senate in YOUR President Richard Nixon's Impeachment, or Monica Lewinsky acting as the same in YOUR President Clinton's Impeachment.
A serious conflict of interest and lack of impartiality by the Chief justice in his writing of the majority opinion. There were five Lincoln appointees sitting on the bench when Chief Justice Chase offered his opinion on secession, but the Chief justice was the only Justice intimately entwined with the Lincoln administration and its policies regarding secession. He certainly should have recused himself if he was going to opine from the Bench on Lincoln’s view of secession
Yet even overlooking that fact, let us read YOUR own CONstitutions Article III Section 2....
"(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,"
Now, YOUR Chief Justice Chase could no more cite a U.S. Law that states that secession was illegal in
Texas v White than can you today: WHY? Because it doesn't exist.
Again YOUR SCOTUS Judicial power exists only in law arising UNDER YOUR CONstitution: So Cite that law.
YOUR SCOTUS cited the Articles of Confederation as a base for the opinion....
Chase discusses the origins of the Union of States and notes that the Articles of Confederation declared the Union to “be perpetual.”

And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained “to form a more perfect Union.” It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

The old Constitution to which Chase referred was the Articles of Confederation, a CONSTITUTION BETWEEN STATES, yet the "more perfect union was a CONstitution of "We the people" NOT We the States. So the perpetual union between States was replaced with "WE the people", a CONTRACT.
The Articles were replaced hence no longer in force, the perpetual union was not so perpetual as it was replaced.If perpetual was carried over, then what else was carried over yet not enumerated in the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution?


The most obvious of these is the contention that Texas never ceased to be a state, yet, the people of Texas were denied representation as a state until they agreed to certain "reconstruction" acts of the U.S. Congress. Among those requirements was accepting a new state constitution dictated by the U.S. through armed force. Stalinists did the same thing to coerce independent nations into the "indissoluble Soviet Union."
Each State that left the union was required to meet certain Reconstruction acts, hence they were considered as no longer being member States in the union, here is where YOUR assertion of Article I section 10 falters, because the States were required to meet these requirements to be Re-admitted, re-admitted means they were not part of the union because they seceded.
Fact is, there has never been a court case where arguments were made on the right of States to withdraw from the Union. Without the opportunity for both sides to present their arguments on the issue, just dicta alone from the Chief Justice does not establish a precedent setting opinion of the Court. This fact alone should put an end to the use of Texas v. White to refute the right of States to withdraw from the Union, but even so, there are other problems with Texas v. White that need to be exposed.
Chase claimed, “The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States.” However, he failed to mention or explain the secession of nine of these original States from their first union (the Articles of Confederation); the only union the States ever proclaimed to be perpetual. There can be no doubt that our first Union under the Articles of Confederation, although claiming to be perpetual, or our current Union under the Constitution, without any such claim of being perpetual, were neither perpetual nor indissoluble.
Yes, you are base in knowledge here, and a product of indoctrination.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Both paperview and I have provided the Cornerstone speech that crushs James' specious argument fo evah, homies.

Oh apparently JAKE, your sweetheart Paperview has ran away yet again, as she never addressed my last post.

You have made no point worthy of address. All of your arguments have been crushed.