Irrefutable legal arguments supporting the right of secession

[Syriusly]

In EVERY state, the South seceded because it feared for the institution of slavery. Some say that poor whites were fooled by the elites who owned most of the slaves, which btw were the biggest single asset in the US at the time, but I don't buy that. The poor whites feared hordes of free blacks swarming the countryside.

The North, however, did not invade the South over slaves. It invaded to prevent secession from succeeding.

"Poor whites" weren't duped, they heard an invading army was approaching and took to arms. I would have done the same if Obama was marching an army on Idaho, I don't care what the issues were.

Most people aren't that intelligent or politically sophisticated. Their passions and loyalties follow simple codes. Men in Virginia thought of themselves as Virginians before anything else and would fight to defend Virginia. The Left's ignorant hypothesis that thousands of white Southerners marched to defend slavery is stupid ratcheted up fortissimo.

I think it is safe to say that appeals to nationalism and safety are part of many wars. Especially when it comes to getting the common folk to support it.

Common folk usually don't start wars. They just die in them.

That's right. Lincoln started the war. That fact is so obvious it's hard to believe anyone disputes it.

Well like I have repeatedly pointed out- irrefutable to you just means you are declaring that you will ignore any contrary opinions or facts.

 

[Syriusly]

pay attention. it doesn't matter if its legal or not. the seceding states would secede from the USA and its laws and constitution and form a new country with its own laws and constitution. The US could declare it "illegal" if it wanted to but it would be meaningless unless they were willing to go to war over it.

Constitutional rights would be established by the new country and its new constitution.

Where your thinking goes wrong is when you assume that the US constitution is valid in any country other than the US.

Yeah, it actually does matter. The whole liberal narrative is based on the theory that the Civil War was a crusade for justice and everything good about America, and they've been trading on that ever since. Every school boy has tons of propaganda rammed into his head based on liberal myths about the war. It turns out the truth is that Lincoln was a brutal mass murdering tyrant who wiped his ass on the Constitution. If people knew that, they would have a whole different attitude about all these laws designed to overturn society that liberals have been assaulting us with for 60 years.

The civil war was the evil south throwing a treasonous hissy fit over the erosion of their capacity to maintain the institution of slavery.

The civil war was stupid and horrible. It was not necessary and any sane American would have preferred that it never happened. Unfortunately it did happen and fortunately we had a fantastic leader to bring us through it and fortunately it helped us end that horrible period of American history where we so blatantly disregarded the God given rights of man.

It happened because Lincoln invaded Virginia. You Lincoln worshipping turds behave as if Lincoln had no other choice. Any school boy can see that he did.

Yeah, couple things happened before that so I think you might want to try again. Or not I don't really care. You don't seem capable of not being delusional.

Are you actually going to maintain that someone held a gun to Lincoln's head and forced him to invade Virginia?

No more than anyone held a gun to Jefferson Davis's head and forced him to fire on American troops- and thereby starting the Civil War.

 

[Syriusly]

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”​

Blah blah blah. The battles were lost and won 140 years ago. The hurly burly is over. We don't care what Prof. Morse says. Plenty of smart folks in 1861 debated all the ins and outs. 750 thousand deaths as a result of the Civil war. It is sad and pointless to debate this at this late date.

Then don't debate it. Get your ass out of this thread if you don't want to discuss the issue.

Yeah- you are interrupting Brip's monologue.......

 

[bripat9643]

In EVERY state, the South seceded because it feared for the institution of slavery. Some say that poor whites were fooled by the elites who owned most of the slaves, which btw were the biggest single asset in the US at the time, but I don't buy that. The poor whites feared hordes of free blacks swarming the countryside.

The North, however, did not invade the South over slaves. It invaded to prevent secession from succeeding.

"Poor whites" weren't duped, they heard an invading army was approaching and took to arms. I would have done the same if Obama was marching an army on Idaho, I don't care what the issues were.

Most people aren't that intelligent or politically sophisticated. Their passions and loyalties follow simple codes. Men in Virginia thought of themselves as Virginians before anything else and would fight to defend Virginia. The Left's ignorant hypothesis that thousands of white Southerners marched to defend slavery is stupid ratcheted up fortissimo.

I think it is safe to say that appeals to nationalism and safety are part of many wars. Especially when it comes to getting the common folk to support it.

Common folk usually don't start wars. They just die in them.

That's right. Lincoln started the war. That fact is so obvious it's hard to believe anyone disputes it.

Well like I have repeatedly pointed out- irrefutable to you just means you are declaring that you will ignore any contrary opinions or facts.

You and the rest of the Lincoln cult believe saying "you're wrong" is refuting the argument. That's pretty much all the lot of you have said.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, it actually does matter. The whole liberal narrative is based on the theory that the Civil War was a crusade for justice and everything good about America, and they've been trading on that ever since. Every school boy has tons of propaganda rammed into his head based on liberal myths about the war. It turns out the truth is that Lincoln was a brutal mass murdering tyrant who wiped his ass on the Constitution. If people knew that, they would have a whole different attitude about all these laws designed to overturn society that liberals have been assaulting us with for 60 years.

The civil war was the evil south throwing a treasonous hissy fit over the erosion of their capacity to maintain the institution of slavery.

The civil war was stupid and horrible. It was not necessary and any sane American would have preferred that it never happened. Unfortunately it did happen and fortunately we had a fantastic leader to bring us through it and fortunately it helped us end that horrible period of American history where we so blatantly disregarded the God given rights of man.

It happened because Lincoln invaded Virginia. You Lincoln worshipping turds behave as if Lincoln had no other choice. Any school boy can see that he did.

Yeah, couple things happened before that so I think you might want to try again. Or not I don't really care. You don't seem capable of not being delusional.

Are you actually going to maintain that someone held a gun to Lincoln's head and forced him to invade Virginia?

No more than anyone held a gun to Jefferson Davis's head and forced him to fire on American troops- and thereby starting the Civil War.

Jefferson didn't fire on American troops. He was president of the Confederacy until long after the fighting started.

As I have explained before, firing on trespassing Yankees was no more an act of war the Poles firing on German tanks. You continually try to evade that point. At least you never respond to it. That's because you know it proves the "Confederacy fired first" theory isn't a justification for war.

 

[MaryL]

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”​

Blah blah blah. The battles were lost and won 140 years ago. The hurly burly is over. We don't care what Prof. Morse says. Plenty of smart folks in 1861 debated all the ins and outs. 750 thousand deaths as a result of the Civil war. It is sad and pointless to debate this at this late date.

Then don't debate it. Get your ass out of this thread if you don't want to discuss the issue.

We are a little hostile today. You are defending the south seceding because, (NOT TO DEFEND owning slaves), but because of some picayune legal mumbo-jumbo and you want US to take you seriously? Really? Get My ass off the thread? Didn't your mammy give you any manners, you shouldn't talk to anyone like that.

 

[MaryL]

There isn't anything to debate. You are playing mind games to excuse southern secession. It was legal to own slaves in America, and you bloody well know it. Irrefutable legal arguments..? The war changed that definition. You are amazing. Take your self righteousness elsewhere.

You're too stupid to get the point, therefore you're a waste of bandwidth.

Don't patronize me. I understand malarkey when I read it.

 

[Syriusly]

In EVERY state, the South seceded because it feared for the institution of slavery. Some say that poor whites were fooled by the elites who owned most of the slaves, which btw were the biggest single asset in the US at the time, but I don't buy that. The poor whites feared hordes of free blacks swarming the countryside.

The North, however, did not invade the South over slaves. It invaded to prevent secession from succeeding.

"Poor whites" weren't duped, they heard an invading army was approaching and took to arms. I would have done the same if Obama was marching an army on Idaho, I don't care what the issues were.

Most people aren't that intelligent or politically sophisticated. Their passions and loyalties follow simple codes. Men in Virginia thought of themselves as Virginians before anything else and would fight to defend Virginia. The Left's ignorant hypothesis that thousands of white Southerners marched to defend slavery is stupid ratcheted up fortissimo.

I think it is safe to say that appeals to nationalism and safety are part of many wars. Especially when it comes to getting the common folk to support it.

Common folk usually don't start wars. They just die in them.

That's right. Lincoln started the war. That fact is so obvious it's hard to believe anyone disputes it.

Well like I have repeatedly pointed out- irrefutable to you just means you are declaring that you will ignore any contrary opinions or facts.

You and the rest of the Lincoln cult believe saying "you're wrong" is refuting the argument. That's pretty much all the lot of you have said.

I have never claimed that my opinion is 'irrefutable'- my opinion is my own- and lots of people- see this thread- feel the same way I do. And there are others who agree with you.

Your position is hardly 'irrefutable'- it is merely contentious.

 

[Syriusly]

The civil war was the evil south throwing a treasonous hissy fit over the erosion of their capacity to maintain the institution of slavery.

The civil war was stupid and horrible. It was not necessary and any sane American would have preferred that it never happened. Unfortunately it did happen and fortunately we had a fantastic leader to bring us through it and fortunately it helped us end that horrible period of American history where we so blatantly disregarded the God given rights of man.

It happened because Lincoln invaded Virginia. You Lincoln worshipping turds behave as if Lincoln had no other choice. Any school boy can see that he did.

Yeah, couple things happened before that so I think you might want to try again. Or not I don't really care. You don't seem capable of not being delusional.

Are you actually going to maintain that someone held a gun to Lincoln's head and forced him to invade Virginia?

No more than anyone held a gun to Jefferson Davis's head and forced him to fire on American troops- and thereby starting the Civil War.

Jefferson didn't fire on American troops. He was president of the Confederacy until long after the fighting started.

As I have explained before, firing on trespassing Yankees was no more an act of war the Poles firing on German tanks. You continually try to evade that point. At least you never respond to it. That's because you know it proves the "Confederacy fired first" theory isn't a justification for war.

You 'explaining' meaning giving your opinion- is just your opinion.

No one held a gun to Jeff Davis's head and forced him to fire on American troops- and thereby starting the most horrific war in our history.

 

[bripat9643]

It happened because Lincoln invaded Virginia. You Lincoln worshipping turds behave as if Lincoln had no other choice. Any school boy can see that he did.

Yeah, couple things happened before that so I think you might want to try again. Or not I don't really care. You don't seem capable of not being delusional.

Are you actually going to maintain that someone held a gun to Lincoln's head and forced him to invade Virginia?

No more than anyone held a gun to Jefferson Davis's head and forced him to fire on American troops- and thereby starting the Civil War.

Jefferson didn't fire on American troops. He was president of the Confederacy until long after the fighting started.

As I have explained before, firing on trespassing Yankees was no more an act of war the Poles firing on German tanks. You continually try to evade that point. At least you never respond to it. That's because you know it proves the "Confederacy fired first" theory isn't a justification for war.

You 'explaining' meaning giving your opinion- is just your opinion.

No one held a gun to Jeff Davis's head and forced him to fire on American troops- and thereby starting the most horrific war in our history.

Once again you evaded responding to the point. Did the Poles start WW II by firing on German tanks?

 

[NYcarbineer]

pay attention. it doesn't matter if its legal or not. the seceding states would secede from the USA and its laws and constitution and form a new country with its own laws and constitution. The US could declare it "illegal" if it wanted to but it would be meaningless unless they were willing to go to war over it.

Constitutional rights would be established by the new country and its new constitution.

Where your thinking goes wrong is when you assume that the US constitution is valid in any country other than the US.

Yeah, it actually does matter. The whole liberal narrative is based on the theory that the Civil War was a crusade for justice and everything good about America, and they've been trading on that ever since. Every school boy has tons of propaganda rammed into his head based on liberal myths about the war. It turns out the truth is that Lincoln was a brutal mass murdering tyrant who wiped his ass on the Constitution. If people knew that, they would have a whole different attitude about all these laws designed to overturn society that liberals have been assaulting us with for 60 years.

The civil war was the evil south throwing a treasonous hissy fit over the erosion of their capacity to maintain the institution of slavery.

The civil war was stupid and horrible. It was not necessary and any sane American would have preferred that it never happened. Unfortunately it did happen and fortunately we had a fantastic leader to bring us through it and fortunately it helped us end that horrible period of American history where we so blatantly disregarded the God given rights of man.

It happened because Lincoln invaded Virginia. You Lincoln worshipping turds behave as if Lincoln had no other choice. Any school boy can see that he did.

He didn't have a choice as long as he respected his oath of office.

As Lincoln said in his first inaugural address:

Continue to execute all the express provisions of our national Constitution, and the Union will endure forever -- it being impossible to destroy it, except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.

Where does his oath of office say he had to invade Virginia? There is no provision in the Constitution that commanded him to do so. In fact, do so is how treason is defined. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the union has to last forever. You idiots simply make it up and then petulantly insist it to be true. No rational person can actually see such language in the document.

His oath of office is to defend the Constitution. Insurgencies that threaten a dissolution of the union are an attack upon the Constitution and everything it creates.

The Constitution FORMS the Union.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, it actually does matter. The whole liberal narrative is based on the theory that the Civil War was a crusade for justice and everything good about America, and they've been trading on that ever since. Every school boy has tons of propaganda rammed into his head based on liberal myths about the war. It turns out the truth is that Lincoln was a brutal mass murdering tyrant who wiped his ass on the Constitution. If people knew that, they would have a whole different attitude about all these laws designed to overturn society that liberals have been assaulting us with for 60 years.

The civil war was the evil south throwing a treasonous hissy fit over the erosion of their capacity to maintain the institution of slavery.

The civil war was stupid and horrible. It was not necessary and any sane American would have preferred that it never happened. Unfortunately it did happen and fortunately we had a fantastic leader to bring us through it and fortunately it helped us end that horrible period of American history where we so blatantly disregarded the God given rights of man.

It happened because Lincoln invaded Virginia. You Lincoln worshipping turds behave as if Lincoln had no other choice. Any school boy can see that he did.

He didn't have a choice as long as he respected his oath of office.

As Lincoln said in his first inaugural address:

Continue to execute all the express provisions of our national Constitution, and the Union will endure forever -- it being impossible to destroy it, except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.

Where does his oath of office say he had to invade Virginia? There is no provision in the Constitution that commanded him to do so. In fact, do so is how treason is defined. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the union has to last forever. You idiots simply make it up and then petulantly insist it to be true. No rational person can actually see such language in the document.

His oath of office is to defend the Constitution. Insurgencies that threaten a dissolution of the union are an attack upon the Constitution and everything it creates.

Secession isn't an "insurgency."

 

[NYcarbineer]

The civil war was the evil south throwing a treasonous hissy fit over the erosion of their capacity to maintain the institution of slavery.

The civil war was stupid and horrible. It was not necessary and any sane American would have preferred that it never happened. Unfortunately it did happen and fortunately we had a fantastic leader to bring us through it and fortunately it helped us end that horrible period of American history where we so blatantly disregarded the God given rights of man.

It happened because Lincoln invaded Virginia. You Lincoln worshipping turds behave as if Lincoln had no other choice. Any school boy can see that he did.

He didn't have a choice as long as he respected his oath of office.

As Lincoln said in his first inaugural address:

Continue to execute all the express provisions of our national Constitution, and the Union will endure forever -- it being impossible to destroy it, except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.

Where does his oath of office say he had to invade Virginia? There is no provision in the Constitution that commanded him to do so. In fact, do so is how treason is defined. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the union has to last forever. You idiots simply make it up and then petulantly insist it to be true. No rational person can actually see such language in the document.

His oath of office is to defend the Constitution. Insurgencies that threaten a dissolution of the union are an attack upon the Constitution and everything it creates.

Secession isn't an "insurgency."

Yes it is. It is a rebellion.

 

[bripat9643]

It happened because Lincoln invaded Virginia. You Lincoln worshipping turds behave as if Lincoln had no other choice. Any school boy can see that he did.

He didn't have a choice as long as he respected his oath of office.

As Lincoln said in his first inaugural address:

Continue to execute all the express provisions of our national Constitution, and the Union will endure forever -- it being impossible to destroy it, except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.

Where does his oath of office say he had to invade Virginia? There is no provision in the Constitution that commanded him to do so. In fact, do so is how treason is defined. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the union has to last forever. You idiots simply make it up and then petulantly insist it to be true. No rational person can actually see such language in the document.

His oath of office is to defend the Constitution. Insurgencies that threaten a dissolution of the union are an attack upon the Constitution and everything it creates.

Secession isn't an "insurgency."

Yes it is. It is a rebellion.

Wrong.

 

[MaryL]

Yeah, couple things happened before that so I think you might want to try again. Or not I don't really care. You don't seem capable of not being delusional.

Are you actually going to maintain that someone held a gun to Lincoln's head and forced him to invade Virginia?

No more than anyone held a gun to Jefferson Davis's head and forced him to fire on American troops- and thereby starting the Civil War.

Jefferson didn't fire on American troops. He was president of the Confederacy until long after the fighting started.

As I have explained before, firing on trespassing Yankees was no more an act of war the Poles firing on German tanks. You continually try to evade that point. At least you never respond to it. That's because you know it proves the "Confederacy fired first" theory isn't a justification for war.

You 'explaining' meaning giving your opinion- is just your opinion.

No one held a gun to Jeff Davis's head and forced him to fire on American troops- and thereby starting the most horrific war in our history.

Once again you evaded responding to the point. Did the Poles start WW II by firing on German tanks?

You are comparing the American South to Poland in 1939? Man, that is a stretch by anyone's logic. American Federal Government wasn't annexing Czechoslovakia as a pretext to invade Kentucky. Lay of the historical analogies. I get your point. You get mine?

 

[bripat9643]

Are you actually going to maintain that someone held a gun to Lincoln's head and forced him to invade Virginia?

No more than anyone held a gun to Jefferson Davis's head and forced him to fire on American troops- and thereby starting the Civil War.

Jefferson didn't fire on American troops. He was president of the Confederacy until long after the fighting started.

As I have explained before, firing on trespassing Yankees was no more an act of war the Poles firing on German tanks. You continually try to evade that point. At least you never respond to it. That's because you know it proves the "Confederacy fired first" theory isn't a justification for war.

You 'explaining' meaning giving your opinion- is just your opinion.

No one held a gun to Jeff Davis's head and forced him to fire on American troops- and thereby starting the most horrific war in our history.

Once again you evaded responding to the point. Did the Poles start WW II by firing on German tanks?

You are comparing the American South to Poland in 1939? Man, that is a stretch by anyone's logic. American Federal Government wasn't annexing Czechoslovakia as a pretext to invade Kentucky. Lay of the historical analogies. I get your point. You get mine?

I dub you the forum dingbat. You're too stupid to waste bandwidth on.

 

[MaryL]

No more than anyone held a gun to Jefferson Davis's head and forced him to fire on American troops- and thereby starting the Civil War.

Jefferson didn't fire on American troops. He was president of the Confederacy until long after the fighting started.

As I have explained before, firing on trespassing Yankees was no more an act of war the Poles firing on German tanks. You continually try to evade that point. At least you never respond to it. That's because you know it proves the "Confederacy fired first" theory isn't a justification for war.

You 'explaining' meaning giving your opinion- is just your opinion.

No one held a gun to Jeff Davis's head and forced him to fire on American troops- and thereby starting the most horrific war in our history.

Once again you evaded responding to the point. Did the Poles start WW II by firing on German tanks?

You are comparing the American South to Poland in 1939? Man, that is a stretch by anyone's logic. American Federal Government wasn't annexing Czechoslovakia as a pretext to invade Kentucky. Lay of the historical analogies. I get your point. You get mine?

I dub you the forum dingbat. You're too stupid to waste bandwidth on.

You got a stutter? You said that already. Buu--t bb--t bb-t. Please. The southern succession was based on nothing more than fighting for slavery, and so far, and you have just been defensive and that re-enforces my point. What else was the south succeeding for other slavery? Mineral rights? You want to finesse this into something else? You are right, you want to play what ifs and debate the finer points, perhaps you are right I shouldn't be here.Because It doesn't matter. I will leave you alone to play your games.

 

[Bombur]

The real question is whether the US would take up arms against a state or states that decided to secede. Its not about 'permission' or 'legality'.

Given that you've just utterly abandoned the 'legality' argument, have you acknowledged that unilateral secession isn't legal?

Why not divide the country into the liberal states and the conservative states, split the national assets and debts evenly and then see which system worked best. The blue states would all look like Detroit and the red would be rich and successful.

Because there are more than 2 perspectives.

Nor would we leave US citizens to have either their property or rights stripped from them in a 'conservative' state that dreams itself its own country. As you know the stripping of constitutional protections would be one of the first things that conservatives states would do if unconfined by the US constitution.

pay attention. it doesn't matter if its legal or not. the seceding states would secede from the USA and its laws and constitution and form a new country with its own laws and constitution. The US could declare it "illegal" if it wanted to but it would be meaningless unless they were willing to go to war over it.

Constitutional rights would be established by the new country and its new constitution.

Where your thinking goes wrong is when you assume that the US constitution is valid in any country other than the US.

Yeah, it actually does matter. The whole liberal narrative is based on the theory that the Civil War was a crusade for justice and everything good about America, and they've been trading on that ever since. Every school boy has tons of propaganda rammed into his head based on liberal myths about the war. It turns out the truth is that Lincoln was a brutal mass murdering tyrant who wiped his ass on the Constitution. If people knew that, they would have a whole different attitude about all these laws designed to overturn society that liberals have been assaulting us with for 60 years.

The civil war was the evil south throwing a treasonous hissy fit over the erosion of their capacity to maintain the institution of slavery.

The civil war was stupid and horrible. It was not necessary and any sane American would have preferred that it never happened. Unfortunately it did happen and fortunately we had a fantastic leader to bring us through it and fortunately it helped us end that horrible period of American history where we so blatantly disregarded the God given rights of man.

Virtually everything you post is pure horseshit.

When the south went to war they gave cause and that cause was overwhelmingly slavery.

I know facts are not your thing but it is time to drop the illusion bud. It can't be good for your mental health to live in this constant state of confusion.

 

[Bombur]

In EVERY state, the South seceded because it feared for the institution of slavery. Some say that poor whites were fooled by the elites who owned most of the slaves, which btw were the biggest single asset in the US at the time, but I don't buy that. The poor whites feared hordes of free blacks swarming the countryside.

The North, however, did not invade the South over slaves. It invaded to prevent secession from succeeding.

"Poor whites" weren't duped, they heard an invading army was approaching and took to arms. I would have done the same if Obama was marching an army on Idaho, I don't care what the issues were.

Most people aren't that intelligent or politically sophisticated. Their passions and loyalties follow simple codes. Men in Virginia thought of themselves as Virginians before anything else and would fight to defend Virginia. The Left's ignorant hypothesis that thousands of white Southerners marched to defend slavery is stupid ratcheted up fortissimo.

I think it is safe to say that appeals to nationalism and safety are part of many wars. Especially when it comes to getting the common folk to support it.

Common folk usually don't start wars. They just die in them.

The only thing I would add is when one's country is being invaded by a hostile force, it doesn't take much convincing.

Both sides did a lot to provoke the other side.

Nope. Lincoln did all the provoking.

ROFLMAO!

You are such a joke. Tell us more about your version of history.

 

[Contumacious]

There isn't anything to debate. You are playing mind games to excuse southern secession. It was legal to own slaves in America, and you bloody well know it. Irrefutable legal arguments..? The war changed that definition. You are amazing. Take your self righteousness elsewhere.

No, the one playing mind games to excuse centralized tyranny is you.

The northern states had no objection to accepting tax monies and selling merchandise and accepting slavedollars in payment thereof.


It was ONLY after the states decided to secede that the northern states became righteous.

.Fuck you then.