Irrefutable legal arguments supporting the right of secession

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

No it wasn't the people who fired on them. Soldiers follow orders. The article of secession was notice that South Carolina was withdrawing its membership in the union and rescinding all previous negotiations including the lease of land that Ft. Sumpter was on. The fact that the US government refused to relinquish territory it no longer had rights to is what caused that conflict. That's putting responsibility back where it belongs.

As I said- South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- I was not saying that the soldier who lit the first fuse was at fault- it was the civilian and military command who chose to go to war against the United States and ordered him to fire the first shot

South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- to try to enforce its claim that the fort was no longer part of the United States.

And by doing so- fired the first shots of the Civil War- which caused a war that was not necessary- and cost the lives of 600,000.

And they lost the slaves that they were trying to keep ownership of. If they had not seceded- or even had not fired on American troops- they could possibly still be enjoying the ownership of their black slaves to this day.

You're just repeating yourself. Surely you're intelligent to see the futility in this argument. You'll keep saying the militia commander had no right to fire on Fort Sumpter and I'll keep saying they did. Fort Sumpter did not start the war, Lincoln marshaling an army of 75,000 troops and ordering them to invade started the war. Had Herr Lincoln Uber Alles not been so eager to kill 600,000 men to slake his bent bloodthirst, damages such as Fort Sumpter by the South and the blockade by the North could have been negotiated peacefully.

Let's put it another way. Even Jean Luc Picard, Captain of the Starship Enterprise would criticize Too Tall for not exploring all options before steering the country on a sure path to a bloody war.

And you know it.

The rebellion of the Southern states started the war. The act of secession was itself the act that justified all necessary and proper action by the President to preserve the Union.

Where do you get this shit?

Secession is only illegal in the mind of the country being seceded from.

No it's illegal under the Constitution. No state is capable of seceding without breaking federal laws.

A declaration of secession is not a legal process by which the state or the residents of the state become exempt from federal law. There is no law that allows that.

Wrong! Get it through your thick deer skull. The states created the Constitution and the states can change it or even dissolve it with or without permission from the federal government. The original power is with the states. You Libtards seem to think the federal government sprang forth from nothing and created the states. Read a history book.

 

[thanatos144]

It wasn't another nation. You are making up facts again. It was a rebellion. The rebels attacked the Union first. They started acting before Lincoln was even sworn in. They openly gave cause for their rebellion and didn't leave it up to the rule of law. They modeled their reasons off of the DOI, except they were defending their violation of the rights of people as opposed to protecting them.

Small but important difference.

I can sum up your post in two words: Nuh uhn!

All you do is repeat the same horseshit over and over and over like a mantra. If that's what it take to salve your guilty conscience.

I'll list my pat responses to your bullshit talking points.

#1. Secession wasn't a rebellion.
#2. It doesn't matter why they seceded. Lincoln didn't invade Virginia to free the slaves.
#3. Ending slavery wasn't sufficient cause for invading a state of the union. It was legal.
#4. Kicking trespassers out of your territory is not an act of war.

In the future just refer to one of these whenever you indulge the compulsion to regurgitate your list of talking points.

Of course it is a rebellion you retard it is why they were called rebels

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Oh, right. Because a bunch of ignorant carpetbagger Yankees used a term incorrectly we are all supposed to accept it as gospel.

That's what passes for logic among the Lincoln cult Illuminati

Dummy the confederates are the ones who started calling them rebels. My god don't any of you ever read?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Did they? Where's the evidence?

It is called a history book gobfind one in the library.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Bombur]

And? None of that is a response to my post.

And who said that the military installation no longer belonged to the United States? Why the people who fired upon them.

South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- to try to enforce its claim that the fort was no longer part of the United States.

And by doing so- fired the first shots of the Civil War- which caused a war that was not necessary- and cost the lives of 600,000.

And they lost the slaves that they were trying to keep ownership of. If they had not seceded- or even had not fired on American troops- they could possibly still be enjoying the ownership of their black slaves to this day.

No it wasn't the people who fired on them. Soldiers follow orders. The article of secession was notice that South Carolina was withdrawing its membership in the union and rescinding all previous negotiations including the lease of land that Ft. Sumpter was on. The fact that the US government refused to relinquish territory it no longer had rights to is what caused that conflict. That's putting responsibility back where it belongs.

As I said- South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- I was not saying that the soldier who lit the first fuse was at fault- it was the civilian and military command who chose to go to war against the United States and ordered him to fire the first shot

South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- to try to enforce its claim that the fort was no longer part of the United States.

And by doing so- fired the first shots of the Civil War- which caused a war that was not necessary- and cost the lives of 600,000.

And they lost the slaves that they were trying to keep ownership of. If they had not seceded- or even had not fired on American troops- they could possibly still be enjoying the ownership of their black slaves to this day.

You're just repeating yourself. Surely you're intelligent to see the futility in this argument. You'll keep saying the militia commander had no right to fire on Fort Sumpter and I'll keep saying they did. Fort Sumpter did not start the war, Lincoln marshaling an army of 75,000 troops and ordering them to invade started the war.

Lincoln called for those 75,000 three days after South Carolina fired on American troops in an American fort, and started the hostilities.

The facts are always worth repeating- the first shots of the Civil War were by Confederate rebel forces firing on American troops in Fort Sumter.

All to protect the Confederate States which had seceded in order to protect their right to own human property- rights enshrined in the Confederate Constitution.

The Poles fired the first shots of WW II. According to your theory that means they started the war.

Lincoln didn't invade Virginia to free the slaves. He didn't give a damn about them. He invaded to impose confiscatory tariffs on the Southern states.

Holy analogy fail Batman!

To say Lincoln didn't give a damn about the slaves is comically ignorant.

Your "facts" are so far from reality you might as well just claim that Lincoln was an alien from outer space.

 

[thanatos144]

And? None of that is a response to my post.

And who said that the military installation no longer belonged to the United States? Why the people who fired upon them.

South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- to try to enforce its claim that the fort was no longer part of the United States.

And by doing so- fired the first shots of the Civil War- which caused a war that was not necessary- and cost the lives of 600,000.

And they lost the slaves that they were trying to keep ownership of. If they had not seceded- or even had not fired on American troops- they could possibly still be enjoying the ownership of their black slaves to this day.

No it wasn't the people who fired on them. Soldiers follow orders. The article of secession was notice that South Carolina was withdrawing its membership in the union and rescinding all previous negotiations including the lease of land that Ft. Sumpter was on. The fact that the US government refused to relinquish territory it no longer had rights to is what caused that conflict. That's putting responsibility back where it belongs.

As I said- South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- I was not saying that the soldier who lit the first fuse was at fault- it was the civilian and military command who chose to go to war against the United States and ordered him to fire the first shot

South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- to try to enforce its claim that the fort was no longer part of the United States.

And by doing so- fired the first shots of the Civil War- which caused a war that was not necessary- and cost the lives of 600,000.

And they lost the slaves that they were trying to keep ownership of. If they had not seceded- or even had not fired on American troops- they could possibly still be enjoying the ownership of their black slaves to this day.

You're just repeating yourself. Surely you're intelligent to see the futility in this argument. You'll keep saying the militia commander had no right to fire on Fort Sumpter and I'll keep saying they did. Fort Sumpter did not start the war, Lincoln marshaling an army of 75,000 troops and ordering them to invade started the war. Had Herr Lincoln Uber Alles not been so eager to kill 600,000 men to slake his bent bloodthirst, damages such as Fort Sumpter by the South and the blockade by the North could have been negotiated peacefully.

Let's put it another way. Even Jean Luc Picard, Captain of the Starship Enterprise would criticize Too Tall for not exploring all options before steering the country on a sure path to a bloody war.

And you know it.

The rebellion of the Southern states started the war. The act of secession was itself the act that justified all necessary and proper action by the President to preserve the Union.

Where do you get this shit?

Secession is only illegal in the mind of the country being seceded from.

It is rebellion and the government does have they power to squash it in the Constitution.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Bombur]

As I said- South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- I was not saying that the soldier who lit the first fuse was at fault- it was the civilian and military command who chose to go to war against the United States and ordered him to fire the first shot

South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- to try to enforce its claim that the fort was no longer part of the United States.

And by doing so- fired the first shots of the Civil War- which caused a war that was not necessary- and cost the lives of 600,000.

And they lost the slaves that they were trying to keep ownership of. If they had not seceded- or even had not fired on American troops- they could possibly still be enjoying the ownership of their black slaves to this day.

You're just repeating yourself. Surely you're intelligent to see the futility in this argument. You'll keep saying the militia commander had no right to fire on Fort Sumpter and I'll keep saying they did. Fort Sumpter did not start the war, Lincoln marshaling an army of 75,000 troops and ordering them to invade started the war. Had Herr Lincoln Uber Alles not been so eager to kill 600,000 men to slake his bent bloodthirst, damages such as Fort Sumpter by the South and the blockade by the North could have been negotiated peacefully.

Let's put it another way. Even Jean Luc Picard, Captain of the Starship Enterprise would criticize Too Tall for not exploring all options before steering the country on a sure path to a bloody war.

And you know it.

The rebellion of the Southern states started the war. The act of secession was itself the act that justified all necessary and proper action by the President to preserve the Union.

Where do you get this shit?

Secession is only illegal in the mind of the country being seceded from.

No it's illegal under the Constitution. No state is capable of seceding without breaking federal laws.

A declaration of secession is not a legal process by which the state or the residents of the state become exempt from federal law. There is no law that allows that.

Wrong! Get it through your thick deer skull. The states created the Constitution and the states can change it or even dissolve it with or without permission from the federal government. The original power is with the states. You Libtards seem to think the federal government sprang forth from nothing and created the states. Read a history book.

The states established how the Constitution could be changed. They couldn't change it all by themselves and even Washington helped establish the authority of the Federal government with force.

Do you want to fail again?

 

[bripat9643]

No it wasn't the people who fired on them. Soldiers follow orders. The article of secession was notice that South Carolina was withdrawing its membership in the union and rescinding all previous negotiations including the lease of land that Ft. Sumpter was on. The fact that the US government refused to relinquish territory it no longer had rights to is what caused that conflict. That's putting responsibility back where it belongs.

As I said- South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- I was not saying that the soldier who lit the first fuse was at fault- it was the civilian and military command who chose to go to war against the United States and ordered him to fire the first shot

South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- to try to enforce its claim that the fort was no longer part of the United States.

And by doing so- fired the first shots of the Civil War- which caused a war that was not necessary- and cost the lives of 600,000.

And they lost the slaves that they were trying to keep ownership of. If they had not seceded- or even had not fired on American troops- they could possibly still be enjoying the ownership of their black slaves to this day.

You're just repeating yourself. Surely you're intelligent to see the futility in this argument. You'll keep saying the militia commander had no right to fire on Fort Sumpter and I'll keep saying they did. Fort Sumpter did not start the war, Lincoln marshaling an army of 75,000 troops and ordering them to invade started the war. Had Herr Lincoln Uber Alles not been so eager to kill 600,000 men to slake his bent bloodthirst, damages such as Fort Sumpter by the South and the blockade by the North could have been negotiated peacefully.

Let's put it another way. Even Jean Luc Picard, Captain of the Starship Enterprise would criticize Too Tall for not exploring all options before steering the country on a sure path to a bloody war.

And you know it.

The rebellion of the Southern states started the war. The act of secession was itself the act that justified all necessary and proper action by the President to preserve the Union.

Where do you get this shit?

Secession is only illegal in the mind of the country being seceded from.

No it's illegal under the Constitution. No state is capable of seceding without breaking federal laws.

A declaration of secession is not a legal process by which the state or the residents of the state become exempt from federal law. There is no law that allows that.

Says who? So your theory is that everything not expressly permitted is prohibited?

You realize that your theory is an idiocy of fascism, don't you?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The garrison commander was given warning to leave peacefully. He chose to stay and die even though he knew he had no functioning warheads to fire back.

That's called suicide.

And? None of that is a response to my post.

And who said that the military installation no longer belonged to the United States? Why the people who fired upon them.

South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- to try to enforce its claim that the fort was no longer part of the United States.

And by doing so- fired the first shots of the Civil War- which caused a war that was not necessary- and cost the lives of 600,000.

And they lost the slaves that they were trying to keep ownership of. If they had not seceded- or even had not fired on American troops- they could possibly still be enjoying the ownership of their black slaves to this day.

No it wasn't the people who fired on them. Soldiers follow orders. The article of secession was notice that South Carolina was withdrawing its membership in the union and rescinding all previous negotiations including the lease of land that Ft. Sumpter was on. The fact that the US government refused to relinquish territory it no longer had rights to is what caused that conflict. That's putting responsibility back where it belongs.

As I said- South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- I was not saying that the soldier who lit the first fuse was at fault- it was the civilian and military command who chose to go to war against the United States and ordered him to fire the first shot

South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- to try to enforce its claim that the fort was no longer part of the United States.

And by doing so- fired the first shots of the Civil War- which caused a war that was not necessary- and cost the lives of 600,000.

And they lost the slaves that they were trying to keep ownership of. If they had not seceded- or even had not fired on American troops- they could possibly still be enjoying the ownership of their black slaves to this day.

You're just repeating yourself. Surely you're intelligent to see the futility in this argument. You'll keep saying the militia commander had no right to fire on Fort Sumpter and I'll keep saying they did. Fort Sumpter did not start the war, Lincoln marshaling an army of 75,000 troops and ordering them to invade started the war.

Lincoln called for those 75,000 three days after South Carolina fired on American troops in an American fort, and started the hostilities.

The facts are always worth repeating- the first shots of the Civil War were by Confederate rebel forces firing on American troops in Fort Sumter.

All to protect the Confederate States which had seceded in order to protect their right to own human property- rights enshrined in the Confederate Constitution.

You don't seem to get it. The whole country was not in a state of civil war until Lincoln turned it into one. Before the invasion there was nothing but a docket of grievances between the United States and former member states, after the invasion was a full out bloody war with thousands of men dying.

The eagerness with which you immoral Leftists leap at the chance to kill hundreds of thousands of people is astonishing. Moral people do everything in their power to avoid war.

Like Jean Luc Picard.

 

[thanatos144]

No it wasn't the people who fired on them. Soldiers follow orders. The article of secession was notice that South Carolina was withdrawing its membership in the union and rescinding all previous negotiations including the lease of land that Ft. Sumpter was on. The fact that the US government refused to relinquish territory it no longer had rights to is what caused that conflict. That's putting responsibility back where it belongs.

As I said- South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- I was not saying that the soldier who lit the first fuse was at fault- it was the civilian and military command who chose to go to war against the United States and ordered him to fire the first shot

South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- to try to enforce its claim that the fort was no longer part of the United States.

And by doing so- fired the first shots of the Civil War- which caused a war that was not necessary- and cost the lives of 600,000.

And they lost the slaves that they were trying to keep ownership of. If they had not seceded- or even had not fired on American troops- they could possibly still be enjoying the ownership of their black slaves to this day.

You're just repeating yourself. Surely you're intelligent to see the futility in this argument. You'll keep saying the militia commander had no right to fire on Fort Sumpter and I'll keep saying they did. Fort Sumpter did not start the war, Lincoln marshaling an army of 75,000 troops and ordering them to invade started the war.

Lincoln called for those 75,000 three days after South Carolina fired on American troops in an American fort, and started the hostilities.

The facts are always worth repeating- the first shots of the Civil War were by Confederate rebel forces firing on American troops in Fort Sumter.

All to protect the Confederate States which had seceded in order to protect their right to own human property- rights enshrined in the Confederate Constitution.

The Poles fired the first shots of WW II. According to your theory that means they started the war.

Lincoln didn't invade Virginia to free the slaves. He didn't give a damn about them. He invaded to impose confiscatory tariffs on the Southern states.

Stating facts to liberals is like trying to teach an armadillo to sing. Its a waste of time.

What facts are we non democrat lovers missing? The fact that several states rebelled and started war for the selfish purpose of owning humans like property? They lost thus they were traitors. Much like thier modern day democrat successors

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[thanatos144]

As I said- South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- I was not saying that the soldier who lit the first fuse was at fault- it was the civilian and military command who chose to go to war against the United States and ordered him to fire the first shot

South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- to try to enforce its claim that the fort was no longer part of the United States.

And by doing so- fired the first shots of the Civil War- which caused a war that was not necessary- and cost the lives of 600,000.

And they lost the slaves that they were trying to keep ownership of. If they had not seceded- or even had not fired on American troops- they could possibly still be enjoying the ownership of their black slaves to this day.

You're just repeating yourself. Surely you're intelligent to see the futility in this argument. You'll keep saying the militia commander had no right to fire on Fort Sumpter and I'll keep saying they did. Fort Sumpter did not start the war, Lincoln marshaling an army of 75,000 troops and ordering them to invade started the war. Had Herr Lincoln Uber Alles not been so eager to kill 600,000 men to slake his bent bloodthirst, damages such as Fort Sumpter by the South and the blockade by the North could have been negotiated peacefully.

Let's put it another way. Even Jean Luc Picard, Captain of the Starship Enterprise would criticize Too Tall for not exploring all options before steering the country on a sure path to a bloody war.

And you know it.

The rebellion of the Southern states started the war. The act of secession was itself the act that justified all necessary and proper action by the President to preserve the Union.

Where do you get this shit?

Secession is only illegal in the mind of the country being seceded from.

No it's illegal under the Constitution. No state is capable of seceding without breaking federal laws.

A declaration of secession is not a legal process by which the state or the residents of the state become exempt from federal law. There is no law that allows that.

Wrong! Get it through your thick deer skull. The states created the Constitution and the states can change it or even dissolve it with or without permission from the federal government. The original power is with the states. You Libtards seem to think the federal government sprang forth from nothing and created the states. Read a history book.

States can change it through the amendment process not war.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Bombur]

As I said- South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- I was not saying that the soldier who lit the first fuse was at fault- it was the civilian and military command who chose to go to war against the United States and ordered him to fire the first shot

South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- to try to enforce its claim that the fort was no longer part of the United States.

And by doing so- fired the first shots of the Civil War- which caused a war that was not necessary- and cost the lives of 600,000.

And they lost the slaves that they were trying to keep ownership of. If they had not seceded- or even had not fired on American troops- they could possibly still be enjoying the ownership of their black slaves to this day.

You're just repeating yourself. Surely you're intelligent to see the futility in this argument. You'll keep saying the militia commander had no right to fire on Fort Sumpter and I'll keep saying they did. Fort Sumpter did not start the war, Lincoln marshaling an army of 75,000 troops and ordering them to invade started the war. Had Herr Lincoln Uber Alles not been so eager to kill 600,000 men to slake his bent bloodthirst, damages such as Fort Sumpter by the South and the blockade by the North could have been negotiated peacefully.

Let's put it another way. Even Jean Luc Picard, Captain of the Starship Enterprise would criticize Too Tall for not exploring all options before steering the country on a sure path to a bloody war.

And you know it.

The rebellion of the Southern states started the war. The act of secession was itself the act that justified all necessary and proper action by the President to preserve the Union.

Where do you get this shit?

Secession is only illegal in the mind of the country being seceded from.

No it's illegal under the Constitution. No state is capable of seceding without breaking federal laws.

A declaration of secession is not a legal process by which the state or the residents of the state become exempt from federal law. There is no law that allows that.

Says who? So your theory is that everything not expressly permitted is prohibited?

You realize that your theory is an idiocy of fascism, don't you?

There was no legally established way to leave the union. It wasn't that it wasn't possible, it was simply not possible without consideration of the union and their legal rights.

For example a state couldn't unilaterally decide to leave then open fire on a fort. That would be an open act of rebellion by force as opposed to an appeal to the legality of their act of secession.

I will say this again in the hope it will sink in. The South didn't take the legal route. They chose force and they lost. If they chose to subject themselves to the law then your argument would have been settled by the law. That never happened because the decisions made by the South, not the north.

 

[thanatos144]

And? None of that is a response to my post.

And who said that the military installation no longer belonged to the United States? Why the people who fired upon them.

South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- to try to enforce its claim that the fort was no longer part of the United States.

And by doing so- fired the first shots of the Civil War- which caused a war that was not necessary- and cost the lives of 600,000.

And they lost the slaves that they were trying to keep ownership of. If they had not seceded- or even had not fired on American troops- they could possibly still be enjoying the ownership of their black slaves to this day.

No it wasn't the people who fired on them. Soldiers follow orders. The article of secession was notice that South Carolina was withdrawing its membership in the union and rescinding all previous negotiations including the lease of land that Ft. Sumpter was on. The fact that the US government refused to relinquish territory it no longer had rights to is what caused that conflict. That's putting responsibility back where it belongs.

As I said- South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- I was not saying that the soldier who lit the first fuse was at fault- it was the civilian and military command who chose to go to war against the United States and ordered him to fire the first shot

South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- to try to enforce its claim that the fort was no longer part of the United States.

And by doing so- fired the first shots of the Civil War- which caused a war that was not necessary- and cost the lives of 600,000.

And they lost the slaves that they were trying to keep ownership of. If they had not seceded- or even had not fired on American troops- they could possibly still be enjoying the ownership of their black slaves to this day.

You're just repeating yourself. Surely you're intelligent to see the futility in this argument. You'll keep saying the militia commander had no right to fire on Fort Sumpter and I'll keep saying they did. Fort Sumpter did not start the war, Lincoln marshaling an army of 75,000 troops and ordering them to invade started the war.

Lincoln called for those 75,000 three days after South Carolina fired on American troops in an American fort, and started the hostilities.

The facts are always worth repeating- the first shots of the Civil War were by Confederate rebel forces firing on American troops in Fort Sumter.

All to protect the Confederate States which had seceded in order to protect their right to own human property- rights enshrined in the Confederate Constitution.

You don't seem to get it. The whole country was not in a state of civil war until Lincoln turned it into one. Before the invasion there was nothing but a docket of grievances between the United States and former member states, after the invasion was a full out bloody war with thousands of men dying.

The eagerness with which you immoral Leftists leap at the chance to kill hundreds of thousands of people is astonishing. Moral people do everything in their power to avoid war.

Like Jean Luc Picard.

All Lincoln did was get elected and the southern democrats started a war. For fucks sake do any of you pass history class or do they no longer teach this in schools?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

No it wasn't the people who fired on them. Soldiers follow orders. The article of secession was notice that South Carolina was withdrawing its membership in the union and rescinding all previous negotiations including the lease of land that Ft. Sumpter was on. The fact that the US government refused to relinquish territory it no longer had rights to is what caused that conflict. That's putting responsibility back where it belongs.

As I said- South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- I was not saying that the soldier who lit the first fuse was at fault- it was the civilian and military command who chose to go to war against the United States and ordered him to fire the first shot

South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- to try to enforce its claim that the fort was no longer part of the United States.

And by doing so- fired the first shots of the Civil War- which caused a war that was not necessary- and cost the lives of 600,000.

And they lost the slaves that they were trying to keep ownership of. If they had not seceded- or even had not fired on American troops- they could possibly still be enjoying the ownership of their black slaves to this day.

You're just repeating yourself. Surely you're intelligent to see the futility in this argument. You'll keep saying the militia commander had no right to fire on Fort Sumpter and I'll keep saying they did. Fort Sumpter did not start the war, Lincoln marshaling an army of 75,000 troops and ordering them to invade started the war.

Lincoln called for those 75,000 three days after South Carolina fired on American troops in an American fort, and started the hostilities.

The facts are always worth repeating- the first shots of the Civil War were by Confederate rebel forces firing on American troops in Fort Sumter.

All to protect the Confederate States which had seceded in order to protect their right to own human property- rights enshrined in the Confederate Constitution.

You don't seem to get it. The whole country was not in a state of civil war until Lincoln turned it into one. Before the invasion there was nothing but a docket of grievances between the United States and former member states, after the invasion was a full out bloody war with thousands of men dying.

The eagerness with which you immoral Leftists leap at the chance to kill hundreds of thousands of people is astonishing. Moral people do everything in their power to avoid war.

Like Jean Luc Picard.

All Lincoln did was get elected and the southern democrats started a war. For fucks sake do any of you pass history class or do they no longer teach this in schools?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

^^^^ nominated the most insanely stupid post in the entire thread.

 

[there4eyeM]

[/QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]

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.[/QUOTE]

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.[/QUOTE]
Rather, it continues and is intended to make more perfect the Perpetual Union in place.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

You're just repeating yourself. Surely you're intelligent to see the futility in this argument. You'll keep saying the militia commander had no right to fire on Fort Sumpter and I'll keep saying they did. Fort Sumpter did not start the war, Lincoln marshaling an army of 75,000 troops and ordering them to invade started the war. Had Herr Lincoln Uber Alles not been so eager to kill 600,000 men to slake his bent bloodthirst, damages such as Fort Sumpter by the South and the blockade by the North could have been negotiated peacefully.

Let's put it another way. Even Jean Luc Picard, Captain of the Starship Enterprise would criticize Too Tall for not exploring all options before steering the country on a sure path to a bloody war.

And you know it.

The rebellion of the Southern states started the war. The act of secession was itself the act that justified all necessary and proper action by the President to preserve the Union.

Where do you get this shit?

Secession is only illegal in the mind of the country being seceded from.

No it's illegal under the Constitution. No state is capable of seceding without breaking federal laws.

A declaration of secession is not a legal process by which the state or the residents of the state become exempt from federal law. There is no law that allows that.

Says who? So your theory is that everything not expressly permitted is prohibited?

You realize that your theory is an idiocy of fascism, don't you?

There was no legally established way to leave the union. It wasn't that it wasn't possible, it was simply not possible without consideration of the union and their legal rights.

For example a state couldn't unilaterally decide to leave then open fire on a fort. That would be an open act of rebellion by force as opposed to an appeal to the legality of their act of secession.

I will say this again in the hope it will sink in. The South didn't take the legal route. They chose force and they lost. If they chose to subject themselves to the law then your argument would have been settled by the law. That never happened because the decisions made by the South, not the north.

The invasion was an act of the North. There was no war before that.

 

[thanatos144]

As I said- South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- I was not saying that the soldier who lit the first fuse was at fault- it was the civilian and military command who chose to go to war against the United States and ordered him to fire the first shot

South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- to try to enforce its claim that the fort was no longer part of the United States.

And by doing so- fired the first shots of the Civil War- which caused a war that was not necessary- and cost the lives of 600,000.

And they lost the slaves that they were trying to keep ownership of. If they had not seceded- or even had not fired on American troops- they could possibly still be enjoying the ownership of their black slaves to this day.

You're just repeating yourself. Surely you're intelligent to see the futility in this argument. You'll keep saying the militia commander had no right to fire on Fort Sumpter and I'll keep saying they did. Fort Sumpter did not start the war, Lincoln marshaling an army of 75,000 troops and ordering them to invade started the war.

Lincoln called for those 75,000 three days after South Carolina fired on American troops in an American fort, and started the hostilities.

The facts are always worth repeating- the first shots of the Civil War were by Confederate rebel forces firing on American troops in Fort Sumter.

All to protect the Confederate States which had seceded in order to protect their right to own human property- rights enshrined in the Confederate Constitution.

You don't seem to get it. The whole country was not in a state of civil war until Lincoln turned it into one. Before the invasion there was nothing but a docket of grievances between the United States and former member states, after the invasion was a full out bloody war with thousands of men dying.

The eagerness with which you immoral Leftists leap at the chance to kill hundreds of thousands of people is astonishing. Moral people do everything in their power to avoid war.

Like Jean Luc Picard.

All Lincoln did was get elected and the southern democrats started a war. For fucks sake do any of you pass history class or do they no longer teach this in schools?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

^^^^ nominated the most insanely stupid post in the entire thread.

Son your ignorance is amazing. You need to look up the dates of Lincoln being elected and the democrats rebellion.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

You're just repeating yourself. Surely you're intelligent to see the futility in this argument. You'll keep saying the militia commander had no right to fire on Fort Sumpter and I'll keep saying they did. Fort Sumpter did not start the war, Lincoln marshaling an army of 75,000 troops and ordering them to invade started the war. Had Herr Lincoln Uber Alles not been so eager to kill 600,000 men to slake his bent bloodthirst, damages such as Fort Sumpter by the South and the blockade by the North could have been negotiated peacefully.

Let's put it another way. Even Jean Luc Picard, Captain of the Starship Enterprise would criticize Too Tall for not exploring all options before steering the country on a sure path to a bloody war.

And you know it.

The rebellion of the Southern states started the war. The act of secession was itself the act that justified all necessary and proper action by the President to preserve the Union.

Where do you get this shit?

Secession is only illegal in the mind of the country being seceded from.

No it's illegal under the Constitution. No state is capable of seceding without breaking federal laws.

A declaration of secession is not a legal process by which the state or the residents of the state become exempt from federal law. There is no law that allows that.

Wrong! Get it through your thick deer skull. The states created the Constitution and the states can change it or even dissolve it with or without permission from the federal government. The original power is with the states. You Libtards seem to think the federal government sprang forth from nothing and created the states. Read a history book.

States can change it through the amendment process not war.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Hooked On Phonics didn't work for you. Learn to spell, dumbass.

 

[there4eyeM]

The was a rebellion in the United States. The United States put down the rebellion.

 

[thanatos144]

The rebellion of the Southern states started the war. The act of secession was itself the act that justified all necessary and proper action by the President to preserve the Union.

Where do you get this shit?

Secession is only illegal in the mind of the country being seceded from.

No it's illegal under the Constitution. No state is capable of seceding without breaking federal laws.

A declaration of secession is not a legal process by which the state or the residents of the state become exempt from federal law. There is no law that allows that.

Wrong! Get it through your thick deer skull. The states created the Constitution and the states can change it or even dissolve it with or without permission from the federal government. The original power is with the states. You Libtards seem to think the federal government sprang forth from nothing and created the states. Read a history book.

States can change it through the amendment process not war.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Hooked On Phonics didn't work for you. Learn to spell, dumbass.

English not your first language ?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Where do you get this shit?

Secession is only illegal in the mind of the country being seceded from.

No it's illegal under the Constitution. No state is capable of seceding without breaking federal laws.

A declaration of secession is not a legal process by which the state or the residents of the state become exempt from federal law. There is no law that allows that.

Wrong! Get it through your thick deer skull. The states created the Constitution and the states can change it or even dissolve it with or without permission from the federal government. The original power is with the states. You Libtards seem to think the federal government sprang forth from nothing and created the states. Read a history book.

States can change it through the amendment process not war.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Hooked On Phonics didn't work for you. Learn to spell, dumbass.

English not your first language ?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

You corrected your spelling. Go get yourself a cookie now.

 

[Bombur]

The rebellion of the Southern states started the war. The act of secession was itself the act that justified all necessary and proper action by the President to preserve the Union.

Where do you get this shit?

Secession is only illegal in the mind of the country being seceded from.

No it's illegal under the Constitution. No state is capable of seceding without breaking federal laws.

A declaration of secession is not a legal process by which the state or the residents of the state become exempt from federal law. There is no law that allows that.

Says who? So your theory is that everything not expressly permitted is prohibited?

You realize that your theory is an idiocy of fascism, don't you?

There was no legally established way to leave the union. It wasn't that it wasn't possible, it was simply not possible without consideration of the union and their legal rights.

For example a state couldn't unilaterally decide to leave then open fire on a fort. That would be an open act of rebellion by force as opposed to an appeal to the legality of their act of secession.

I will say this again in the hope it will sink in. The South didn't take the legal route. They chose force and they lost. If they chose to subject themselves to the law then your argument would have been settled by the law. That never happened because the decisions made by the South, not the north.

The invasion was an act of the North. There was no war before that.

The use of force to settle the dispute was started by the South by the attack on Ft Sumpter. There were attempts at negotiating peace by the north but the south wouldn't have it. The north went to reclaim their territory that was taken by force and the South fought to maintain that land with force.

The most obvious parallel is not a legal secession but a Declaration of Independence that was not subject to the written law but natural laws as the American Revolution was. It was a war that was started based on the South's belief that they were morally right in defending their property rights with force just like how the Founding Fathers were morally right in defending their property rights with force.

The major problem was that the South wasn't morally right and when it came to a test of force versus force they lost. To try and re-write history so that they were not morally wrong and not the ones to start the conflict is intellectually dishonest to the point of absurdity. You can lie to yourself all you want but the history is very clear.