Irrefutable legal arguments supporting the right of secession

[amrchaos]

I guess people are trying to choose which viewpoint to take as true.

For the Union, secession was an act of rebellion. Southern state governments spat on the constitution and illegally formed a confederacy to highlight their individualism.

For the South, the aligned with pro-Union/anti-South interest became too powerful. They felt the only way to preserve their culture and society was to break away from the Union. Here, two points of view can develop. 1) They had the right to leave as a sovereign entity or 2) Secession is recognized as a rebellion and war with the Union is expected.


Personally, I go with the winner. The reasoning is quick and the victor is usually the judge.

Even so, to argue that secession is legal does require you to take a very optimistic viewpoint from the Southern perspective. One, I seriously doubt any southern politician at the time would consider realistic or sound.

 

[bripat9643]

Sending supply ships into the territorial waters of South Carolina was an act of war, as was continuing to occupy Ft Sumter.

Foolish traitor. All your whining won't change the FACTS of history as have been pointed out to you again and again. You're just playing the clown now.

The US government had no right to be there once South Carolina told them to leave.

Wrong, revisionista.

These goofballs think it Kentucky, for example, decided to secede, they could just take over Fort Knox, and say, hey, too bad fellas. It's ours now.

Some bizarre notion these cons have -- that you can just steal Federal property, eh?

LOL, liberals are so slow.

The Union was told to leave Fort Sumpter
The didn't, they dug in
Four months later South Carolina fought to remove them

But do you follow that? Nope. You come back with "Kentucky, for example, ... could just take over Fort Knox, and say, hey, too bad fellas. It's ours now"

LOL, you didn't follow the point at all, Holmes

Ignoring the facts you post and the arguments you make is the main part of their modus operandi.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The US government had no right to be there once South Carolina told them to leave.

Wrong, revisionista.

These goofballs think it Kentucky, for example, decided to secede, they could just take over Fort Knox, and say, hey, too bad fellas. It's ours now.

Some bizarre notion these cons have -- that you can just steal Federal property, eh?

LOL, liberals are so slow.

The Union was told to leave Fort Sumpter
The didn't, they dug in
Four months later South Carolina fought to remove them

But do you follow that? Nope. You come back with "Kentucky, for example, ... could just take over Fort Knox, and say, hey, too bad fellas. It's ours now"

LOL, you didn't follow the point at all, Holmes

You apparently seem to be the one who is not following.

Did you miss the post about land that was FEDERAL PROPERTY in South Carolina - that you think ....

pay attention now -- SC could just up and declare all the federal forts they had taken (and ship) theirs -- and say "hey, too bad fellas. It's ours now -- because that's pretty much what you're saying when you say:

"The US government had no right to be there once South Carolina told them to leave."

You can't just steal Federal property. Idiot.

Right, it's South Carolina ... land ... moron. South Carolina did not declare ownership of the possessions of the Fort, they told the Union to leave. And it was ... four months ... before they attempted to remove them. How stupid are you?

All across the South upon secession the rebelling states were seizing Federal land and property. Try reading some history. Or try reading the thread.

 

[bripat9643]

Image of what a coward with a firearm can accomplish.

Now imagine a Democrat standing behind a taxpayer and you're starting to get it

Democracy is murder?

Do you have a better system?

Democracy often is murder. Remember Waco?

Waco was not passing tax legislation you retard.

Jesus.

The FBI has murdered tax protestors as well. Government kills people. How else do you think it enforces all those feel-good laws turds like you support?

 

[bripat9643]

The Union was told to leave Fort Sumpter...

Illegally, illegitimately, by a bunch of traitorous dogs. They were put down, and to have delusional fools like you take up their treason is beyond absurd.

At that point, the Union was an occupying army. You should look up what "Federal" government actually means

No it wasn't it was still the Federal army on US soil.

Nope. It was no longer U.S. soil. How many times does the meaning of "secession" have to be explained to you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

For those of you who think secession is "illegal". Why didn't Lincoln just file suit against the confederacy? Thats how legal issues are resolved.

this whole thread is just foolish. Secession has nothing to do with legality.

It has nothing to do with 'think,' it is a fact of settled and accepted Constitutional law that 'secession' is un-Constitutional.

Otherwise, your 'question' exhibits the ignorance of the Constitution and its case law common to you and most others on the right.

I love how you twats think that case law is absolute. The states can abolish the Supreme Court and every decision it ever made if they want to. Seceding states are not subject to Supreme Court decisions.

Really? Can your county secede from your state?

I'm sure the rest of Idaho would greatly appreciate it. Ada County is one of the only two blue counties in the state.

Is that a yes or a no?

Make the argument that your county can legally secede from your state, declare itself a sovereign nation,

and commence to ignore state law.

 

[there4eyeM]

Stalinist boot licker! Ouch! Ukotare, that had to really hurt.

 

[bripat9643]

I think it's time to designate Palmyra Atoll [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmyra_Atoll]
as the new home for those Libertarian leaning kooks, like bripat & Kaz, who hate America as it is, and Americans.

They can live free of the common and codified law, write their own history and live free and unencumbered of those Americans who believe in the social contract, and that our government has a role in their general Welfare.

Let each as they choose follow the COTUS as they choose to understand it; each can be armed with as many weapons of the kind they freely choose, and develop or not the land which is given to them simply because of the accident of their birth on American soil.

I'd bet we'd see an example of Lord of the Flies in months, if not in days.

You love America like blood sucking leeches love their hosts. You're a parasite. We hate America ... what an idiot you are

They love American just like Nazis loved Germany or an abusing husband loves his wife.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Image of what a coward with a firearm can accomplish.

Now imagine a Democrat standing behind a taxpayer and you're starting to get it

Democracy is murder?

Do you have a better system?

Democracy often is murder. Remember Waco?

Waco was not passing tax legislation you retard.

Jesus.

The FBI has murdered tax protestors as well. Government kills people. How else do you think it enforces all those feel-good laws turds like you support?

Again you're jabbering incoherently.

Kaz said that legislation to levy taxes in a democratic system is comparable to murder.

Do you wish to defend him?

 

[bripat9643]

Foolish traitor. All your whining won't change the FACTS of history as have been pointed out to you again and again. You're just playing the clown now.

The US government had no right to be there once South Carolina told them to leave.

Wrong, revisionista.

These goofballs think it Kentucky, for example, decided to secede, they could just take over Fort Knox, and say, hey, too bad fellas. It's ours now.

Some bizarre notion these cons have -- that you can just steal Federal property, eh?

LOL, liberals are so slow.

The Union was told to leave Fort Sumpter
The didn't, they dug in
Four months later South Carolina fought to remove them

But do you follow that? Nope. You come back with "Kentucky, for example, ... could just take over Fort Knox, and say, hey, too bad fellas. It's ours now"

LOL, you didn't follow the point at all, Holmes

You apparently seem to be the one who is not following.

Did you miss the post about land that was FEDERAL PROPERTY in South Carolina - that you think ....

pay attention now -- SC could just up and declare all the federal forts they had taken (and ship) theirs -- and say "hey, too bad fellas. It's ours now -- because that's pretty much what you're saying when you say:

"The US government had no right to be there once South Carolina told them to leave."

You can't just steal Federal property. Idiot.

As I've explained to you 1000 times, it was federal property, not federal territory. If the U.S government owned a warehouse in Mexico, it wouldn't have the right to declare war if the Mexican government kicked them off the property and repossessed it.

 

[Skylar]

The Union was told to leave Fort Sumpter...

Illegally, illegitimately, by a bunch of traitorous dogs. They were put down, and to have delusional fools like you take up their treason is beyond absurd.

At that point, the Union was an occupying army. You should look up what "Federal" government actually means

No it wasn't it was still the Federal army on US soil.

Nope. It was no longer U.S. soil. How many times does the meaning of "secession" have to be explained to you?

The State wasn't the only sovereign of the territory. The US federal government had concurrent jurisdiction. When both have jurisdiction over the territory, no territorial decisions can be made without the other. The State doesn't have the authority to make unilateral decisions. As without the consent of the other sovereign, no territorial decisions would be valid.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Is anyone surprised that crazed anti-government murderers are now known to have posted on this board?

 

[there4eyeM]

There is no possibility of legal secession, so simply declaring to secede only means rebellion and invites being suppressed.

 

[bripat9643]

For those of you who think secession is "illegal". Why didn't Lincoln just file suit against the confederacy? Thats how legal issues are resolved.

this whole thread is just foolish. Secession has nothing to do with legality.

It has nothing to do with 'think,' it is a fact of settled and accepted Constitutional law that 'secession' is un-Constitutional.

Otherwise, your 'question' exhibits the ignorance of the Constitution and its case law common to you and most others on the right.

I love how you twats think that case law is absolute. The states can abolish the Supreme Court and every decision it ever made if they want to. Seceding states are not subject to Supreme Court decisions.

Really? Can your county secede from your state?

I'm sure the rest of Idaho would greatly appreciate it. Ada County is one of the only two blue counties in the state.

Is that a yes or a no?

Make the argument that your county can legally secede from your state, declare itself a sovereign nation,

and commence to ignore state law.

The counties were never sovereign countries.

 

[bripat9643]

There is no possibility of legal secession, so simply declaring to secede only means rebellion and invites being suppressed.

Wrong.

None of you turds have even tried to prove secession is illegal.

 

[bripat9643]

The Lincoln-Douglass debates prove your claim is wrong. Please post an example that proves Lincoln gave a damn about the slaves.

"This declared indifference, but, as I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world—enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites—causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty—criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest."

And yet he promised repeatedly not to abolish slavery, otherwise he would never have been elected. Herr Lincoln Uber Alles was first, last, and foremost a politician who ran for office several times until he found the magic words to win. Like Obama, he lacked even an ounce of geniune character. It's all a light show and suckers like you fall for it every time.

In order to preserve the union. Once the South rebelled he changed his plan because it no longer made sense. He didn't hide his feelings towards slavery when he was campaigning, but he campaigned on a solution to slavery that didn't involve war. War was thrust upon him by the south.

Lincoln had incredible character. He was incredibly clear in his arguments which were often presented concisely and logically. This can be hard for people like yourself who are not logical thinkers but emotional ones.

That's pure made up horseshit.

Lincoln was the Supreme liar and ultimate hypocrite. He was a mass murderer. He wiped his ass on the Constitution. He supported crony capitalism and doled out huge sums to his favorite business cronies.

That's the liberal conceptions "character."

lol

You are absolutely terrible at staying on topic. It is like you can't help but deflect every conversation into something else because it is so obvious your world view is delusional nonsense.

Everything I said is correct. Deal with it.

You haven't posted anything correct since you joined this forum.

 

[there4eyeM]

There is no possibility of legal secession, so simply declaring to secede only means rebellion and invites being suppressed.

As has been repeatedly clearly shown without being clearly refuted, Perpetual Union was what all states were and are in, so unilateral attempts to withdraw are void and doing so with violence is rebellion.
Somehow, certain posters seem to be blind to this.

 

[bripat9643]

The Union was told to leave Fort Sumpter...

Illegally, illegitimately, by a bunch of traitorous dogs. They were put down, and to have delusional fools like you take up their treason is beyond absurd.

At that point, the Union was an occupying army. You should look up what "Federal" government actually means

No it wasn't it was still the Federal army on US soil.

Nope. It was no longer U.S. soil. How many times does the meaning of "secession" have to be explained to you?

The State wasn't the only sovereign of the territory. The US federal government had concurrent jurisdiction. When both have jurisdiction over the territory, no territorial decisions can be made without the other. The State doesn't have the authority to make unilateral decisions. As without the consent of the other sovereign, no territorial decisions would be valid.

The federal government has "concurrent jurisdiction" over Yellowstone Park. Does that mean it's not part of Wyoming?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The US government had no right to be there once South Carolina told them to leave.

Wrong, revisionista.

These goofballs think it Kentucky, for example, decided to secede, they could just take over Fort Knox, and say, hey, too bad fellas. It's ours now.

Some bizarre notion these cons have -- that you can just steal Federal property, eh?

LOL, liberals are so slow.

The Union was told to leave Fort Sumpter
The didn't, they dug in
Four months later South Carolina fought to remove them

But do you follow that? Nope. You come back with "Kentucky, for example, ... could just take over Fort Knox, and say, hey, too bad fellas. It's ours now"

LOL, you didn't follow the point at all, Holmes

You apparently seem to be the one who is not following.

Did you miss the post about land that was FEDERAL PROPERTY in South Carolina - that you think ....

pay attention now -- SC could just up and declare all the federal forts they had taken (and ship) theirs -- and say "hey, too bad fellas. It's ours now -- because that's pretty much what you're saying when you say:

"The US government had no right to be there once South Carolina told them to leave."

You can't just steal Federal property. Idiot.

As I've explained to you 1000 times, it was federal property, not federal territory. If the U.S government owned a warehouse in Mexico, it wouldn't have the right to declare war if the Mexican government kicked them off the property and repossessed it.

They could just do to Southerners seizing federal property what was done to John Brown.

John Brown tried to seize the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry. He was captured by a US marine assault and hanged.

 

[bripat9643]

Is anyone surprised that crazed anti-government murderers are now known to have posted on this board?

Which member of this forum is a murderer?