Confederate constitution legalized slavery

[JakeStarkey]

James, you cannot have your own definitions and terms and facts.

You cannot recreate a history that never existed.

Your harmless obsession remains irrelevant to anything real, but it keeps you busy with a therapy that cannot hurt anyone.

 

[James Everett]

James, you cannot have your own definitions and terms and facts.

You cannot recreate a history that never existed.

Your harmless obsession remains irrelevant to anything real, but it keeps you busy with a therapy that cannot hurt anyone.

I challenge YOU to show one definition that I have used, that is incorrect, or my own. I will prove you wrong every time. As you may recall, I refer to proper definitions using Johnson's Dictionary of the English language (1755) edition, which contains the definitions that the founders would have considered.
You are in way above the limits of your indoctrination.

 

[Unkotare]

Denial doesn't strengthen your weak attempt at revision.

The facts are the facts, ...

And the fact is that the traitorous confederate dogs violated the law of the land (according to the Supreme Court, if not LARPer losers like you) and were brought to heel more gently than they deserved.

 

[James Everett]

Denial doesn't strengthen your weak attempt at revision.

The facts are the facts, ...

And the fact is that the traitorous confederate dogs violated the law of the land (according to the Supreme Court, if not LARPer losers like you) and were brought to heel more gently than they deserved.

Please show the SCOTUS opinion citing this violation of the "law of the land" to which you refer.
You cannot just post BS and expect it to go unchallenged.
I will await your citation.

 

[Unkotare]

Let's ask Justice Scalia:

"I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.(Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, “one Nation, indivisible.”) Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit. "


Scalia There Is No Right to Secede New York Personal Injury Law Blog

 

[Unkotare]

Texas v. White LII Legal Information Institute

"The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And, when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union.""

 

[Unkotare]

"Considered as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention, and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give [p701] effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union."

 

[Unkotare]

" Authority to suppress rebellion is found in the power to suppress insurrection and carry on war, and authority to provide for the restoration of State governments, under the Constitution, when subverted and overthrown, is derived from the obligation of the United States to guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government. The latter, indeed, in the case of a rebellion which involves the government of a State, and, for the time, excludes the National authority from its limits, seems to be a necessary complement to the other."

 

[Unkotare]

"The Court held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union"


Texas v. White The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

 

[James Everett]

Texas v. White LII Legal Information Institute

"The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And, when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union.""

I already explained to you that you should NOT try and pass this BS off as a case denying a State the right to secede, as it is just that BS. The case was over bonds, not secession. There were no arguments made before that Kangaroo court regarding secession.
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.

There was also 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.

Chief Justice Chase was an integral part of the Lincoln administration and served as Treasury Secretary from 1861 until 1864, after which Lincoln nominated him as the Chief Justice of the United States. While in the Lincoln administration, Chase was one of only two cabinet members offering support for Lincoln’s plan to resupply Fort Sumter.

As Doris Kearns Goodwin recounts on page 336 of her book Team of Rivals, Secretary Chase suggested that Lincoln consider, “The organization of actual government by the seven seceded states as an accomplished revolution—accomplished through the complicity of the late admn—& letting that confederacy try its experiment.” As Secretary, Chase seemed to support the idea that, as he referred to them, “the seceded seven states” had organized an “actual government.” Nevertheless, as Chief Justice, he perhaps looked to find some justification for the death and destruction perpetuated by an administration of which he was intimately involved. There can be no doubt that the Chief Justice should have recused himself from inserting an opinion of the court on the constitutionality of secession—the core issue of Lincoln’s administration, of which he was a key collaborator.

It is interesting that in Justice Chase’s opinion, he again used the term “the seceded states” as he did in his advice to Lincoln on Fort Sumter. Not to make too much of this phrase, but Lincoln seemed to take great care not to use the “seceded states” phrase, for in doing so it could be taken as an admission that the States had indeed seceded. Further evidence that Chase believed secession had occurred can also be found in his opinion on this case when he wrote, “The relations of Texas to the Union were broken up, and new relations to a new government were established for them.” Here again, he seemed to be saying that Texas had indeed “broken up” its relations with the Union and joined another government—in other words, they had seceded.

Despite Chief Justice Chase’s clear bias regarding the issue of secession, there were also problems with the underlying facts of his ruling. Not surprisingly, for someone intimately involved with Lincoln’s administration, his opinion parroted one of Lincoln’s arguments—the thoroughly debunked theory of, “a more perfect and perpetual Union.”

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.

It was also odd that for someone as well versed in the law as was the Chief Justice, to use a phrase found in the preamble of our Constitution, “a more perfect union,” upon which he based his claim of a perpetual union. Odd because preambles and headings are rarely used to form legal opinions.

This ruling also claimed the, “Authority to suppress rebellion is found in the power to suppress insurrection and carry on war, and authority to provide for the restoration of State governments, under the Constitution, when subverted and overthrown, is derived from the obligation of the United States to guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government.” But Chase’s opinion conveniently leaves out the constitutional requirement for the “Application of the Legislature” in the suppression of domestic violence, the constitutional protection against invasion, and the fact that the seceded States had a “republican form of government” under their newly constituted government.

Another canard promoted in the Court’s opinion claims, “War having become necessary to complete the purposed destruction by the South of the Federal government, Texas joined the other Southern States, and made war upon the United States…” This is pure nonsense since even those deniers of the right of secession understand that the South was not attempting to wage war against the United States—they simply wanted to be left alone.

Finally, the United States Supreme Court, as an impartial arbiter on disputes involving the interpretation of the Constitution, has lost all credibility. Who can deny that politics plays the most prominent of roles in the nomination of Supreme Court Justices as well as their confirmation. Republicans and Democrats both work to insure that new Justices look favorably on their issues when they are seated on the Court. If one needs any evidence of the extreme political nature of the Supreme Court today, all they need do is look at the number of 5-4 decisions on issues of import—with the same Justices split ideological between liberal and conservative views.

The opinions rendered in this case had many flaws when it came to deciding the constitutionality of secession, and any one of the more serious problems found in the majority’s opinion should be enough to remove the cloak of respectability from this dubious opinion. While there was no evidence of such, some believe this case was manufactured for the sole purpose of legitimizing the Civil War. But, speculation aside, it does appear that so soon after the Civil War there was desperation by those involved in the horrific and unconstitutional actions of the Lincoln administration, including Chief Justice Chase, to look for any opportunity that might justify their misdeeds. Texas v. White offered that opportunity, regardless of the convoluted and flawed opinion of the Court’s majority.

 

[James Everett]

"The Court held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union"


Texas v. White The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

As stated this opinion was not over secession and no arguments were made regarding secession.
As the Kangaroo court opinion reads from your own link.....
"
Conclusion

In a 5-to-3 decision, the Court held that Texas did indeed have the right to bring suit and that individuals such as White had no claim to the bonds in question. The Court held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas legislature--even if ratified by a majority of Texans--were "absolutely null." Even during the period of rebellion, however, the Court found that Texas continued to be a state.

This is easily defeated in a case concerning secession.....
If As the Kangaroo court found.....
"the Court found that Texas continued to be a state."
Then it would be a little difficult for the State of Texas to be Re-admitted as was required by your government, if Texas never left the union.
Now do you see how easily your indoctrination concerning Texas v White is easily exposed with one simple statement of FACT, not to mention many many more that would be exposed if the case ever were actually brought before a legitimate unbiased court?

 

[Unkotare]

Texas v. White legal definition of Texas v. White

"Chief Justice salmon p. chase,in his majority opinion,held that the Constitution "in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.""

 

[JakeStarkey]

Unkotare has completely eviscerated James' nonsense.

 

[Unkotare]

Here we see the pathetic wannabe revisionist simply denying reality and insisting upon 'disqualifying' and closing his eyes to the actual facts and findings of history that might be inconvenient to his infantile attempts at playing historian.

You have lost as surely as the confederate traitors did with their attempt at illegal secession in the name of evil.

 

[James Everett]

Let's ask Justice Scalia:

"I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.(Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, “one Nation, indivisible.”) Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit. "


Scalia There Is No Right to Secede New York Personal Injury Law Blog

Again, We see that YOUR so called Justice referred to the issue as being settled by war, NOT LAW.
He was deflecting because just as was the case 140 years ago.
The BS pledge of allegiance wasn't penned until 1892, lon after secession, this is tantamount to ex post facto.
As we see Scalia is stating that the U.S. Kangaroo court would not hear such a case. Why? because the truth would be exposed. The issue is above the SCOTUS and beyond its jurisdiction as its jurisdiction is limited in Article III section 2.

 

[Unkotare]

Let's ask Justice Scalia:

"I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.(Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, “one Nation, indivisible.”) Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit. "


Scalia There Is No Right to Secede New York Personal Injury Law Blog

*ahem*

 

[RKMBrown]

Let's ask Justice Scalia:

"I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.(Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, “one Nation, indivisible.”) Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit. "


Scalia There Is No Right to Secede New York Personal Injury Law Blog

Again, We see that YOUR so called Justice referred to the issue as being settled by war, NOT LAW.
He was deflecting because just as was the case 140 years ago.
The BS pledge of allegiance wasn't penned until 1892, lon after secession, this is tantamount to ex post facto.
As we see Scalia is stating that the U.S. Kangaroo court would not hear such a case. Why? because the truth would be exposed. The issue is above the SCOTUS and beyond its jurisdiction as its jurisdiction is limited in Article III section 2.

You're wasting your breath. Unk is too busy humping his table leg to even try to understand your explanation.

 

[James Everett]

" Authority to suppress rebellion is found in the power to suppress insurrection and carry on war, and authority to provide for the restoration of State governments, under the Constitution, when subverted and overthrown, is derived from the obligation of the United States to guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government. The latter, indeed, in the case of a rebellion which involves the government of a State, and, for the time, excludes the National authority from its limits, seems to be a necessary complement to the other."

Your problem here is that there was no insurrection. Insurrection is defined as rebellion, rebellion is defined as insurrection against lawful authority, and as we both KNOW, neither YOU nor YOUR SCOTUS can cite a law that states that Secession is illegal or unlawful, or that grants the U.S. the power to prevent a State from exercising its individual retained power.
Here we refer to the tenth amendment to YOUR CONstitution.....
"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."
If no power was delegated by the State governments to the United States (THE STATES IN UNION COLLECTIVELY) then that power is retained by each State individually, and as you or YOUR SCOTUS can cite no law against secession, or a power delegated to the U.S. to prevent that legal and lawful act, then that POWER is retained by each individual State.

 

[Unkotare]

"When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States."

-Salmon P. Chase

 

[James Everett]

" Authority to suppress rebellion is found in the power to suppress insurrection and carry on war, and authority to provide for the restoration of State governments, under the Constitution, when subverted and overthrown, is derived from the obligation of the United States to guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government. The latter, indeed, in the case of a rebellion which involves the government of a State, and, for the time, excludes the National authority from its limits, seems to be a necessary complement to the other."

Further the States that seceded were no loner part of the union.