Irrefutable legal arguments supporting the right of secession

[bripat9643]

No, your conscience on this is immoral and your procedure is unconstitutional.

The territories were admitted IAW legislative procedure.

It was immoral for federal troops to murder those who wanted to determine their own destiny.
The legislative action to enter the union was not violent, and the same should have been true to leave.

How anyone can argue against this is beyond me.

The Supreme Court has already made the decision 146 years ago. It is signed, sealed and delivered. How anyone can argue against this is beyond me.

The Supreme Court decided nothing. It simply rubber stamped Lincoln's invasion because that's what the members were hired to do.

 

[nuhuh]

No, your conscience on this is immoral and your procedure is unconstitutional.

The territories were admitted IAW legislative procedure.

It was immoral for federal troops to murder those who wanted to determine their own destiny.
The legislative action to enter the union was not violent, and the same should have been true to leave.

How anyone can argue against this is beyond me.

The Supreme Court has already made the decision 146 years ago. It is signed, sealed and delivered. How anyone can argue against this is beyond me.

That's what I was saying. Glad you figured it out

Apologies for mis-reading your post.

 

[bripat9643]

No, your conscience on this is immoral and your procedure is unconstitutional.

The territories were admitted IAW legislative procedure.

It was immoral for federal troops to murder those who wanted to determine their own destiny.
The legislative action to enter the union was not violent, and the same should have been true to leave.

How anyone can argue against this is beyond me.

The Supreme Court has already made the decision 146 years ago. It is signed, sealed and delivered. How anyone can argue against this is beyond me.

Well the supreme Court also said a man can be property

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Well there is no point in repeating dark points in our nation's history either.

Like when the Supreme Court ruled incorrectly? The whole premise of your argument is that the court is infallible.

Whoops!

 

[bripat9643]

Secession and treason were immoral, putting the traitors down was righteous.

And you don't decide how it should have been done.

You don't take disagreement well, do you?

I'm sure the British said the same thing about our forefathers when they declared their independence.
Looks like we know which side you would have taken. I don't suppose your last name is Arnold ?

You must really like slavery.

Not at all. Slavery was wrong, but it's a completely separate issue from whether secession was right or wrong.

The South wanted to continue the practice and they knew if they stayed in the union their days of being able to own other human beings were numbered. Their reason for secession was immoral, but regardless, they should have been allowed to leave the union and control their own destiny.

The north on the other hand did not go to war to end slavery. They fought to preserve the union. Slavery was a secondary issue. Lincoln himself even contemplated rounding up blacks and shipping them elsewhere, rather than fighting to free them. Many southerners believed that once the fighting started, most northerners would not stomach killing their southern white brothers in order to end slavery, and because of this the fighting would be short lived and they would prevail. Instead it's likely over 600,000 American men were killed, about 2% of the population, or in todays terms about 6 million.

So what is more dangerous 50 small states following the rule of law or one large state not following the law? Seems to me 50 states fighting among themselves to iron out differences regarding commerce and resources is far more dangerous and patently foolish.

I'd say it's precisely the opposite. History has shown that large states are far more dangerous, especially to their neighbors.

 

[Unkotare]

No, your conscience on this is immoral and your procedure is unconstitutional.

The territories were admitted IAW legislative procedure.

It was immoral for federal troops to murder those who wanted to determine their own destiny.
The legislative action to enter the union was not violent, and the same should have been true to leave.

How anyone can argue against this is beyond me.

The Supreme Court has already made the decision 146 years ago. It is signed, sealed and delivered. How anyone can argue against this is beyond me.

The Supreme Court decided nothing.

Yes it did, wannabe reb loser. All your crying won't change that. Don't you have a LARPer meeting to attend?

 

[bripat9643]

No, your conscience on this is immoral and your procedure is unconstitutional.

The territories were admitted IAW legislative procedure.

It was immoral for federal troops to murder those who wanted to determine their own destiny.
The legislative action to enter the union was not violent, and the same should have been true to leave.

How anyone can argue against this is beyond me.

A lot of things are beyond you.

Like the kind of profound dishonesty you engage in.

 

[nuhuh]

No, your conscience on this is immoral and your procedure is unconstitutional.

The territories were admitted IAW legislative procedure.

It was immoral for federal troops to murder those who wanted to determine their own destiny.
The legislative action to enter the union was not violent, and the same should have been true to leave.

How anyone can argue against this is beyond me.

The Supreme Court has already made the decision 146 years ago. It is signed, sealed and delivered. How anyone can argue against this is beyond me.

The Supreme Court decided nothing. It simply rubber stamped Lincoln's invasion because that's what the members were hired to do.

Some things within the law are not settled, Roe v Wade would be one of those. When a law has gone a significant number of years and is not challenged it becomes settled law. Instances of that would be Brown v Board of Education and Marbury v Madison. Texas v White is settled law and is considered beyond dispute. That's the way it works in this country not the way you would like it to work.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, your conscience on this is immoral and your procedure is unconstitutional.

The territories were admitted IAW legislative procedure.

It was immoral for federal troops to murder those who wanted to determine their own destiny.
The legislative action to enter the union was not violent, and the same should have been true to leave.

How anyone can argue against this is beyond me.

The Supreme Court has already made the decision 146 years ago. It is signed, sealed and delivered. How anyone can argue against this is beyond me.

The Supreme Court decided nothing. It simply rubber stamped Lincoln's invasion because that's what the members were hired to do.

If you believe in any legitimate authority to make, interpret, and enforce the rules,

then you don't believe in government.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Secession and treason were immoral, putting the traitors down was righteous.

And you don't decide how it should have been done.

You don't take disagreement well, do you?

I'm sure the British said the same thing about our forefathers when they declared their independence.
Looks like we know which side you would have taken. I don't suppose your last name is Arnold ?

You must really like slavery.

Not at all. Slavery was wrong, but it's a completely separate issue from whether secession was right or wrong.

The South wanted to continue the practice and they knew if they stayed in the union their days of being able to own other human beings were numbered. Their reason for secession was immoral, but regardless, they should have been allowed to leave the union and control their own destiny.

The north on the other hand did not go to war to end slavery. They fought to preserve the union. Slavery was a secondary issue. Lincoln himself even contemplated rounding up blacks and shipping them elsewhere, rather than fighting to free them. Many southerners believed that once the fighting started, most northerners would not stomach killing their southern white brothers in order to end slavery, and because of this the fighting would be short lived and they would prevail. Instead it's likely over 600,000 American men were killed, about 2% of the population, or in todays terms about 6 million.

So what is more dangerous 50 small states following the rule of law or one large state not following the law? Seems to me 50 states fighting among themselves to iron out differences regarding commerce and resources is far more dangerous and patently foolish.

Maybe, but citizens of a state should be allowed to try regardless.

 

[nuhuh]

No, your conscience on this is immoral and your procedure is unconstitutional.

The territories were admitted IAW legislative procedure.

It was immoral for federal troops to murder those who wanted to determine their own destiny.
The legislative action to enter the union was not violent, and the same should have been true to leave.

How anyone can argue against this is beyond me.

The Supreme Court has already made the decision 146 years ago. It is signed, sealed and delivered. How anyone can argue against this is beyond me.

Well the supreme Court also said a man can be property

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Well there is no point in repeating dark points in our nation's history either.

Like when the Supreme Court ruled incorrectly? The whole premise of your argument is that the court is infallible.

Whoops!

Whoever said the law was perfect?

 

[nuhuh]

Secession and treason were immoral, putting the traitors down was righteous.

And you don't decide how it should have been done.

You don't take disagreement well, do you?

I'm sure the British said the same thing about our forefathers when they declared their independence.
Looks like we know which side you would have taken. I don't suppose your last name is Arnold ?

You must really like slavery.

Not at all. Slavery was wrong, but it's a completely separate issue from whether secession was right or wrong.

The South wanted to continue the practice and they knew if they stayed in the union their days of being able to own other human beings were numbered. Their reason for secession was immoral, but regardless, they should have been allowed to leave the union and control their own destiny.

The north on the other hand did not go to war to end slavery. They fought to preserve the union. Slavery was a secondary issue. Lincoln himself even contemplated rounding up blacks and shipping them elsewhere, rather than fighting to free them. Many southerners believed that once the fighting started, most northerners would not stomach killing their southern white brothers in order to end slavery, and because of this the fighting would be short lived and they would prevail. Instead it's likely over 600,000 American men were killed, about 2% of the population, or in todays terms about 6 million.

So what is more dangerous 50 small states following the rule of law or one large state not following the law? Seems to me 50 states fighting among themselves to iron out differences regarding commerce and resources is far more dangerous and patently foolish.

Maybe, but citizens of a state should be allowed to try regardless.

Then I suggest you move to a state with like minded individuals and give it a roll.

 

[bripat9643]

Here it is folks. Now you Lincoln cult members can commence whining and blubbering:

Downsizing the U.S.A. - Thomas H. Naylor William H. Willimon - Google Books

First, no less than seven states had engaged in acts of nullification of the U.S. Constitution long before South Carolina announced its plans to secede on December 20 1960 – Kentucky (1799), Pennsylvania (1809), Georgia (1832), South Carolina (1832), Wisconsin (1854) Massachusetts (1855), and Vermont (1858), According to Professor H Newcomb Morse, “Nullification occurs when people of a state refuse to recognize the validity of an exercise of power by the national government which, in the state’s view, transcends the limited and enumerated delegated powers of the national constitution.” Those instances where national laws have been nullified by Northern states gave credence to the view that the compact forming the Union had already been breached and the Confederate states were morally and legally free to leave.

Second, and most importantly, the U.S. Constitution does not forbid secession. According to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Stated alternatively, that which is not expressly prohibited by the Constitution is allowed.

Third, while the Confederate States were in the process of seceding, three amendments to the Constitution were presented to the U.S. Congress placing conditions on the rights of states to seceded. Then on March 2, 1861, after seven states had already seceded an amendment was proposed which would have outlawed secession entirely. Although none of these amendments were ever ratified, Professor Morse asked, “Why would Congress have considered proposed amendments to the Constitution forbidding or restricting the right of secession if any such right was already prohibited, limited or non-existent under the Constitution?”

Fourth, three of the original thirteen states – Virginia, New York and Rhode Island – ratified the U.S. Constitution only conditionally. Each explicitly retained the right to secede. By the time South Carolina seceded in 1860, a total of thirty three states had acceded to the Union. By accepting the right of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island to secede, had they not tacitly accepted the doctrine of secession for the nation as a whole?

Fifth, according to Professor Morse, after the Civil War the Union occupation armies were removed from Arkansas, North Carolina, Florida, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Virginia only after those former Confederate States had incorporated in their constitutions a clause surrendering the right to secede, Mr Morse has also noted that, “under this premise, all of the Northern States and ny other states required to relinquish the right to secede in their constitutions would still have the right to secede at present”​

The Supreme Court ruled that secession is unconstitutional. Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869)
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. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

This argument has already been disposed of. It's simply an arrogant claim of being correct. It contains no logic to support that conclusion.

 

[bripat9643]

It was immoral for federal troops to murder those who wanted to determine their own destiny.
The legislative action to enter the union was not violent, and the same should have been true to leave.

How anyone can argue against this is beyond me.

The Supreme Court has already made the decision 146 years ago. It is signed, sealed and delivered. How anyone can argue against this is beyond me.

Well the supreme Court also said a man can be property

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Well there is no point in repeating dark points in our nation's history either.

Like when the Supreme Court ruled incorrectly? The whole premise of your argument is that the court is infallible.

Whoops!

Whoever said the law was perfect?

The point is that you admit the Court can rule incorrectly. Therefore Texas v. White doesn't support your case.

 

[Syriusly]

Whenever anyone feels obligated to tell us that their argument is 'Irrefutable', you know it is not.

Then refute it.

I had no reason to read further than "irrefutable"- and of course I knew that the thread was started by you.

I realize you don't want to expose yourself to ideas that make you feel uncomfortable with your prejudices.

I haven't yet read a post of yourself that has made me uncomfortable.

I have laughed in derision quite a few times.

 

[nuhuh]

The Supreme Court has already made the decision 146 years ago. It is signed, sealed and delivered. How anyone can argue against this is beyond me.

Well the supreme Court also said a man can be property

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Well there is no point in repeating dark points in our nation's history either.

Like when the Supreme Court ruled incorrectly? The whole premise of your argument is that the court is infallible.

Whoops!

Whoever said the law was perfect?

The point is that you admit the Court can rule incorrectly. Therefore Texas v. White doesn't support your case.

Nope. You should have contested in sooner than 146 yrs.

 

[bripat9643]

What was the law PRIOR to the Confederacy that expressly forbid any state to secede ?

Wrong question. Was there ever a law that permitted secession is the correct question.

Why would there have needed to be a law ? Territories were allowed to freely enter the union, why would you have a system that once in you were forbidden to leave ?
That's immoral, and should be unconstitutional.

Our elected government officials are adults and must work within the established system of government for the common good. Our society of ordered liberty would fall into chaos if our officials acted like children and threatened to take their ball and go home whenever things didn't go their way. Because leaving the union is not an option, they have to obey the supreme law of the land whether they like it or not.

The option of leaving is the only thing that kept the federal government in check for the first 70 years of its existence. That's precisely why Lincoln decided to close that option. He knew the states would refuse to go along with his schemes to divert the treasury to his crony capitalist friends.

 

[bripat9643]

Well the supreme Court also said a man can be property

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Well there is no point in repeating dark points in our nation's history either.

Like when the Supreme Court ruled incorrectly? The whole premise of your argument is that the court is infallible.

Whoops!

Whoever said the law was perfect?

The point is that you admit the Court can rule incorrectly. Therefore Texas v. White doesn't support your case.

Nope. You should have contested in sooner than 146 yrs.

You mean like before I was born? The Lincoln cult is swirling down the toilet bowl of stupidity.

 

[Idadunno]

Here it is folks. Now you Lincoln cult members can commence whining and blubbering:

Downsizing the U.S.A. - Thomas H. Naylor William H. Willimon - Google Books

First, no less than seven states had engaged in acts of nullification of the U.S. Constitution long before South Carolina announced its plans to secede on December 20 1960 – Kentucky (1799), Pennsylvania (1809), Georgia (1832), South Carolina (1832), Wisconsin (1854) Massachusetts (1855), and Vermont (1858), According to Professor H Newcomb Morse, “Nullification occurs when people of a state refuse to recognize the validity of an exercise of power by the national government which, in the state’s view, transcends the limited and enumerated delegated powers of the national constitution.” Those instances where national laws have been nullified by Northern states gave credence to the view that the compact forming the Union had already been breached and the Confederate states were morally and legally free to leave.

Second, and most importantly, the U.S. Constitution does not forbid secession. According to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Stated alternatively, that which is not expressly prohibited by the Constitution is allowed.

Third, while the Confederate States were in the process of seceding, three amendments to the Constitution were presented to the U.S. Congress placing conditions on the rights of states to seceded. Then on March 2, 1861, after seven states had already seceded an amendment was proposed which would have outlawed secession entirely. Although none of these amendments were ever ratified, Professor Morse asked, “Why would Congress have considered proposed amendments to the Constitution forbidding or restricting the right of secession if any such right was already prohibited, limited or non-existent under the Constitution?”

Fourth, three of the original thirteen states – Virginia, New York and Rhode Island – ratified the U.S. Constitution only conditionally. Each explicitly retained the right to secede. By the time South Carolina seceded in 1860, a total of thirty three states had acceded to the Union. By accepting the right of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island to secede, had they not tacitly accepted the doctrine of secession for the nation as a whole?

Fifth, according to Professor Morse, after the Civil War the Union occupation armies were removed from Arkansas, North Carolina, Florida, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Virginia only after those former Confederate States had incorporated in their constitutions a clause surrendering the right to secede, Mr Morse has also noted that, “under this premise, all of the Northern States and ny other states required to relinquish the right to secede in their constitutions would still have the right to secede at present”​

The Supreme Court ruled that secession is unconstitutional. Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869)
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. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

This argument has already been disposed of. It's simply an arrogant claim of being correct. It contains no logic to support that conclusion.

Only a fool using a bird flipping child as an avatar would think that....

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Here it is folks. Now you Lincoln cult members can commence whining and blubbering:

Downsizing the U.S.A. - Thomas H. Naylor William H. Willimon - Google Books

First, no less than seven states had engaged in acts of nullification of the U.S. Constitution long before South Carolina announced its plans to secede on December 20 1960 – Kentucky (1799), Pennsylvania (1809), Georgia (1832), South Carolina (1832), Wisconsin (1854) Massachusetts (1855), and Vermont (1858), According to Professor H Newcomb Morse, “Nullification occurs when people of a state refuse to recognize the validity of an exercise of power by the national government which, in the state’s view, transcends the limited and enumerated delegated powers of the national constitution.” Those instances where national laws have been nullified by Northern states gave credence to the view that the compact forming the Union had already been breached and the Confederate states were morally and legally free to leave.

Second, and most importantly, the U.S. Constitution does not forbid secession. According to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Stated alternatively, that which is not expressly prohibited by the Constitution is allowed.

Third, while the Confederate States were in the process of seceding, three amendments to the Constitution were presented to the U.S. Congress placing conditions on the rights of states to seceded. Then on March 2, 1861, after seven states had already seceded an amendment was proposed which would have outlawed secession entirely. Although none of these amendments were ever ratified, Professor Morse asked, “Why would Congress have considered proposed amendments to the Constitution forbidding or restricting the right of secession if any such right was already prohibited, limited or non-existent under the Constitution?”

Fourth, three of the original thirteen states – Virginia, New York and Rhode Island – ratified the U.S. Constitution only conditionally. Each explicitly retained the right to secede. By the time South Carolina seceded in 1860, a total of thirty three states had acceded to the Union. By accepting the right of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island to secede, had they not tacitly accepted the doctrine of secession for the nation as a whole?

Fifth, according to Professor Morse, after the Civil War the Union occupation armies were removed from Arkansas, North Carolina, Florida, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Virginia only after those former Confederate States had incorporated in their constitutions a clause surrendering the right to secede, Mr Morse has also noted that, “under this premise, all of the Northern States and ny other states required to relinquish the right to secede in their constitutions would still have the right to secede at present”​

The Supreme Court ruled that secession is unconstitutional. Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869)
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. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

 

[nuhuh]

Well there is no point in repeating dark points in our nation's history either.

Like when the Supreme Court ruled incorrectly? The whole premise of your argument is that the court is infallible.

Whoops!

Whoever said the law was perfect?

The point is that you admit the Court can rule incorrectly. Therefore Texas v. White doesn't support your case.

Nope. You should have contested in sooner than 146 yrs.

You mean like before I was born? The Lincoln cult is swirling down the toilet bowl of stupidity.

You must use all of your fingers and toes to count. Unless you are a medical miracle 146 yrs is what we are talking about. You should have tried sooner.