Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes, I remember how "progressive" they were when Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio passed the original Jim Crow laws that prohibited runaway slaves from squatting, working, owning land, or doing anything else except just passing through.And why would you state that?.....the slave owners, whether dem or whig, were conservativesDemocrat slave owners dick head not conservative.
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
I think he said that because he studied history. He is correct. Likewise, the progressives at that time in history congregated under the "Republican" party label.
I'm glad you identify with that tradition. I agree they were just like you.
Why did the southern states want to secede from the Union? Could it be the anti-slave sentiment in the northern states? Why don't you do some research about the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which infuriated many northern citizens because they didn't want to enforce slavery. The opposition of northern people ("progressives") to the Act was cited by southern states as a cause for secession.
No, you deliver ignorance and stupidity devoid of facts and merit.So says the queen of ad hominems LOL
.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.”
Professor H Newcomb Morse - - just another states rights charlatan ...
those same people were for slavery ... that's why there is a national gov't, to keep an immoral aberration of a few from circumventing what is for the greater good for all.
.
Nothing but slander and ad hominems. It doesn't matter what the credentials of the good professor, do you have anything to counter his arguments?
I didn't think so.
You're a typical bootlicking Lincoln cult member.
I deliver logic and facts along with my accurate appraisals of my opponents.
Well there is no point in repeating dark points in our nation's history either.Well the supreme Court also said a man can be property
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Like when the Supreme Court ruled incorrectly? The whole premise of your argument is that the court is infallible.
Whoops!
We all know that our courts are indeed fallible and sometimes make errors. On the other hand, you hold out your arguments as infallible, i.e., irrefutable. You make no room for error on your part. That is hubris.
If I make an error, then show it. So far you have been singularly ineffective. The court isn't just fallible. It's nothing but a gang of political whores.
You argue that a right to secede exists, others argue that it doesn't exist. There are logical arguments on both sides. I find Stephens' arguments to be persuasive. But there is no question that the southern states did, in fact, attempt to secede from the Union. The Constitution granted the federal government the power to put down insurrections and rebellions and the federal government utilized that power. The rebels knew their actions would be answered with force. If the rebels had not lost on the battlefields, then their secession would have been complete.
Similarly, the Colonies rebelled against England. If the Colonies had not prevailed on the battlefields, then the rebellion would have failed and we might still be under English rule today.
We can't rewrite history. The southern state rebels lost--that was 150 years ago. The Civil War settled the dispute.
Your unsupported conclusion that the Supreme Court is "nothing but a gang of political whores" doesn't change history.
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!
We all know that our courts are indeed fallible and sometimes make errors. On the other hand, you hold out your arguments as infallible, i.e., irrefutable. You make no room for error on your part. That is hubris.
If I make an error, then show it. So far you have been singularly ineffective. The court isn't just fallible. It's nothing but a gang of political whores.
You argue that a right to secede exists, others argue that it doesn't exist. There are logical arguments on both sides. I find Stephens' arguments to be persuasive. But there is no question that the southern states did, in fact, attempt to secede from the Union. The Constitution granted the federal government the power to put down insurrections and rebellions and the federal government utilized that power. The rebels knew their actions would be answered with force. If the rebels had not lost on the battlefields, then their secession would have been complete.
Similarly, the Colonies rebelled against England. If the Colonies had not prevailed on the battlefields, then the rebellion would have failed and we might still be under English rule today.
We can't rewrite history. The southern state rebels lost--that was 150 years ago. The Civil War settled the dispute.
Your unsupported conclusion that the Supreme Court is "nothing but a gang of political whores" doesn't change history.
Secession isn't a rebellion or an insurrection. It's a legislative process. The rebels had no idea what would happen when they seceded until Lincoln invaded Virginia.
Your argument boils down to saying "might makes right." It's one of the many idiocies that other Lincoln cult members have posted in here. I realize that's part of the liberal system of ethics, but it doesn't pass the smell test.
Whether secession is "legal" or not is a foolish question. Did the signers of the declaration of independence ask King George if secession from Britain was "legal" ?
If a state or states decide to secede they are, by that act, ignoring US laws and statutes and declaring that they are no longer part of the USA.
If they renounce the USA then "legality" is not pertinent.
The question is whether there would be a war over secession. The USSR broke up, the USA could also. I sincerely hope that never happens, but its foolish to ask if it would be "legal".
What if a state proclaimed itself to have seceded, and then proceeded to ban something like handgun ownership?
You think the gun rights people in that state wouldn't try to invoke a claim of status as US citizens protected by the 2nd amendment?
Like when the Supreme Court ruled incorrectly? The whole premise of your argument is that the court is infallible.
Whoops!
We all know that our courts are indeed fallible and sometimes make errors. On the other hand, you hold out your arguments as infallible, i.e., irrefutable. You make no room for error on your part. That is hubris.
If I make an error, then show it. So far you have been singularly ineffective. The court isn't just fallible. It's nothing but a gang of political whores.
You argue that a right to secede exists, others argue that it doesn't exist. There are logical arguments on both sides. I find Stephens' arguments to be persuasive. But there is no question that the southern states did, in fact, attempt to secede from the Union. The Constitution granted the federal government the power to put down insurrections and rebellions and the federal government utilized that power. The rebels knew their actions would be answered with force. If the rebels had not lost on the battlefields, then their secession would have been complete.
Similarly, the Colonies rebelled against England. If the Colonies had not prevailed on the battlefields, then the rebellion would have failed and we might still be under English rule today.
We can't rewrite history. The southern state rebels lost--that was 150 years ago. The Civil War settled the dispute.
Your unsupported conclusion that the Supreme Court is "nothing but a gang of political whores" doesn't change history.
Secession isn't a rebellion or an insurrection. It's a legislative process. The rebels had no idea what would happen when they seceded until Lincoln invaded Virginia.
Your argument boils down to saying "might makes right." It's one of the many idiocies that other Lincoln cult members have posted in here. I realize that's part of the liberal system of ethics, but it doesn't pass the smell test.
Sorry, Bri. We usually agree but you are off base on this one.
So says the queen of ad hominems LOL
.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.”
Professor H Newcomb Morse - - just another states rights charlatan ...
those same people were for slavery ... that's why there is a national gov't, to keep an immoral aberration of a few from circumventing what is for the greater good for all.
.
Nothing but slander and ad hominems. It doesn't matter what the credentials of the good professor, do you have anything to counter his arguments?
I didn't think so.
You're a typical bootlicking Lincoln cult member.
I deliver logic and facts along with my accurate appraisals of my opponents.
The subject is secession, which is an internalized form of revolution.Might makes right? I don't remember being taught that in my catechesis.Like the anjinsan said rebellions are legal if you win.... the democrats of the south lostNeither openness nor secrecy nor deceit have any bearing whatsoever upon the Legality of the thing.We rebelled from England. We didn't lie about our intentions like the democrats of the south didThe Brits could have said the same thing about us in 1776, yes?
A 'legal right' to secede exists if the victor in such a struggle says it exists, yes?
After all, it's how we broke away from England.
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Revolutions are almost always violent, and, if the insurrectionists win through force, then they are considered 'right' (legal), yes?
Is the phrase 'might makes right' - in the context of secession and/or revolution - always and without fail, a truism?
Nope.
Is the phrase 'might makes right' nearly always a truism?
Yep.
Close enough for Gubmint work.
The more perfect Perpetual Union established therein certainly is.Wrong, as usual; you're still in it.The law was not against secession, the law was for a Perpetual Union.
This is simple.
A "perpetual union" that lasted 13 years.
Are the Articles of Confederation still in force?
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!
We all know that our courts are indeed fallible and sometimes make errors. On the other hand, you hold out your arguments as infallible, i.e., irrefutable. You make no room for error on your part. That is hubris.
If I make an error, then show it. So far you have been singularly ineffective. The court isn't just fallible. It's nothing but a gang of political whores.
You argue that a right to secede exists, others argue that it doesn't exist. There are logical arguments on both sides. I find Stephens' arguments to be persuasive. But there is no question that the southern states did, in fact, attempt to secede from the Union. The Constitution granted the federal government the power to put down insurrections and rebellions and the federal government utilized that power. The rebels knew their actions would be answered with force. If the rebels had not lost on the battlefields, then their secession would have been complete.
Similarly, the Colonies rebelled against England. If the Colonies had not prevailed on the battlefields, then the rebellion would have failed and we might still be under English rule today.
We can't rewrite history. The southern state rebels lost--that was 150 years ago. The Civil War settled the dispute.
Your unsupported conclusion that the Supreme Court is "nothing but a gang of political whores" doesn't change history.
Secession isn't a rebellion or an insurrection. It's a legislative process. The rebels had no idea what would happen when they seceded until Lincoln invaded Virginia..
What if a state proclaimed itself to have seceded, and then proceeded to ban something like handgun ownership?
You think the gun rights people in that state wouldn't try to invoke a claim of status as US citizens protected by the 2nd amendment?
U.S. citizens have no gun rights in Mexico, so why do you think they would have gun rights in a state that seceded? If they want to exercise their gun rights, all they have to do is go back to the United States.
But in fact the opposite would happen and likely every able body man in a seceding state would be REQUIRED to have a gun. NYcarbineer's proposal is stupid beyond belief.What if a state proclaimed itself to have seceded, and then proceeded to ban something like handgun ownership?
You think the gun rights people in that state wouldn't try to invoke a claim of status as US citizens protected by the 2nd amendment?
U.S. citizens have no gun rights in Mexico, so why do you think they would have gun rights in a state that seceded? If they want to exercise their gun rights, all they have to do is go back to the United States.
Whether secession is "legal" or not is a foolish question. Did the signers of the declaration of independence ask King George if secession from Britain was "legal" ?
If a state or states decide to secede they are, by that act, ignoring US laws and statutes and declaring that they are no longer part of the USA.
If they renounce the USA then "legality" is not pertinent.
The question is whether there would be a war over secession. The USSR broke up, the USA could also. I sincerely hope that never happens, but its foolish to ask if it would be "legal".
The cool thing about secession and nullification which makes this whole discussion academic is that no permission is needed. It's just done. I personally hope Texas will be the first to secede and immediately seize the 11 military bases it has. All the federal spending in Red states that the Left loves to crow about is actually military spending, not entitlements....a critical fact that they omit.
The subject is secession, which is an internalized form of revolution.Might makes right? I don't remember being taught that in my catechesis.Like the anjinsan said rebellions are legal if you win.... the democrats of the south lostNeither openness nor secrecy nor deceit have any bearing whatsoever upon the Legality of the thing.We rebelled from England. We didn't lie about our intentions like the democrats of the south did
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Revolutions are almost always violent, and, if the insurrectionists win through force, then they are considered 'right' (legal), yes?
Is the phrase 'might makes right' - in the context of secession and/or revolution - always and without fail, a truism?
Nope.
Is the phrase 'might makes right' nearly always a truism?
Yep.
Close enough for Gubmint work.
Bullshit. Secession does not necessarily need to lead to war. When Herr Lincoln Über Alles drew up an invasion army of 75,000 troops and steered them on a clear invasion course, there can be no disputing that he started a war that wasn't necessary and caused the deaths of 600,000 men. He absolutely deserved to be shot in the head by the families of the people he murdered.
But in fact the opposite would happen and likely every able body man in a seceding state would be REQUIRED to have a gun. NYcarbineer's proposal is stupid beyond belief.What if a state proclaimed itself to have seceded, and then proceeded to ban something like handgun ownership?
You think the gun rights people in that state wouldn't try to invoke a claim of status as US citizens protected by the 2nd amendment?
U.S. citizens have no gun rights in Mexico, so why do you think they would have gun rights in a state that seceded? If they want to exercise their gun rights, all they have to do is go back to the United States.
Sure it can. As long as you haven't been deprived of your property, you have not been wronged and have no say in what jurisdiction it is. Cities annex sections of county or even other cities all the time. Your house can be in one city, and then another city next week if your section gets annexed. You have no say in this whatsoever.What if a state proclaimed itself to have seceded, and then proceeded to ban something like handgun ownership?
You think the gun rights people in that state wouldn't try to invoke a claim of status as US citizens protected by the 2nd amendment?
U.S. citizens have no gun rights in Mexico, so why do you think they would have gun rights in a state that seceded? If they want to exercise their gun rights, all they have to do is go back to the United States.
I'm in the United States. New York cannot declare my property to be part of a foreign country any more than Mexico can annex San Diego.
But in fact the opposite would happen and likely every able body man in a seceding state would be REQUIRED to have a gun. NYcarbineer's proposal is stupid beyond belief.What if a state proclaimed itself to have seceded, and then proceeded to ban something like handgun ownership?
You think the gun rights people in that state wouldn't try to invoke a claim of status as US citizens protected by the 2nd amendment?
U.S. citizens have no gun rights in Mexico, so why do you think they would have gun rights in a state that seceded? If they want to exercise their gun rights, all they have to do is go back to the United States.
Like when the Supreme Court ruled incorrectly? The whole premise of your argument is that the court is infallible.
Whoops!
We all know that our courts are indeed fallible and sometimes make errors. On the other hand, you hold out your arguments as infallible, i.e., irrefutable. You make no room for error on your part. That is hubris.
If I make an error, then show it. So far you have been singularly ineffective. The court isn't just fallible. It's nothing but a gang of political whores.
You argue that a right to secede exists, others argue that it doesn't exist. There are logical arguments on both sides. I find Stephens' arguments to be persuasive. But there is no question that the southern states did, in fact, attempt to secede from the Union. The Constitution granted the federal government the power to put down insurrections and rebellions and the federal government utilized that power. The rebels knew their actions would be answered with force. If the rebels had not lost on the battlefields, then their secession would have been complete.
Similarly, the Colonies rebelled against England. If the Colonies had not prevailed on the battlefields, then the rebellion would have failed and we might still be under English rule today.
We can't rewrite history. The southern state rebels lost--that was 150 years ago. The Civil War settled the dispute.
Your unsupported conclusion that the Supreme Court is "nothing but a gang of political whores" doesn't change history.
Secession isn't a rebellion or an insurrection. It's a legislative process. The rebels had no idea what would happen when they seceded until Lincoln invaded Virginia..
Really?
They had 'no idea'? what would happen when they decided to fire on American troops?
Wow- you are making them out to be even stupider than I thought they were.
