Irrefutable legal arguments supporting the right of secession

[there4eyeM]

Neither God nor Lincoln made states join the Perpetual Union. Neither God nor Lincoln make it illegal to unilaterally separate. Separation is inherently excluded.
It is apparently frustrating, to those that contend otherwise, not to be able to show when this Perpetual Union evaporated. They keep stamping their foot and signaling their intelligence quotient, yet provide no solid evidence.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Again, the federal government is a concurrent sovereign over the States. As the territory had two sovereigns, no territorial decisions can be made without the consent of both. The Federal government can't cede territory within a State without the State's authorization. Nor can the State cede territory within a State without the Federal government's authorization.

That's just more of your made up horseshit. There are no historical documents to support such a claim. The fact that right before the war several bills were submitted to Congress to make secession illegal shows that members of Congress believed it was legal.

And the federal government never offered its authorization. Thus, no territorial changes occurred. And the southern states remained under concurrent jurisdiction, sharing sovereignty with the federal government.

Again, the "everything that isn't expressly permitted is prohibited" theory of jurisprudence - a theory that every judge in the United States would laugh at.

Madison utterly obliterates the secession and nullification arguments, explicitly contradicting them. Madison also dismantles the conditional ratification argument, recognizing that the constitution must be ratified in toto and forever. Madison also recognized the concurrent jurisdiction of the State and Federal Government over territory within a State.

You're arguing that you know what the constitution means better than Madison himself did. And you're obviously wrong.

Sorry, but no he doesn't. He expressed an opinion. Madison may have been "the father of the Constitution," whatever that nebulous phrase is supposed to mean, but he didn't write the Constitution. Dozens and even hundreds of people had a hand in crafting the document over a period of months. They all have their own opinions about what the document means. Madison's opinion is no more authoritative than the opinion of any of the other people who worked on it.

A state that seceded would presumably stop paying federal taxes. The power of the federal government to tax is constitutional. Therefore secession becomes illegal by the simple fact that secession includes violations of specific federal, constitutional laws.

A state that seceded would not be part of the United States and would no longer be subject to federal law.

You really are incredibly stupid on this point.

But the state cannot legally secede. That is the point. No one, including states, can arbitrarily, unilaterally declare themselves exempt from the law. That's absurd.

Sure they can. They simply have to secede. That's what secession is. There is no law against secession, so how can it be illegal? You keep ignoring that point. You simply insist that it's illegal with no factual or logical support of any kind.

It's illegal because it includes illegal acts.

 

[paperview]

There is no law against secession, so how can it be illegal?

Texas v White.

Fin.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Again, the federal government is a concurrent sovereign over the States. As the territory had two sovereigns, no territorial decisions can be made without the consent of both. The Federal government can't cede territory within a State without the State's authorization. Nor can the State cede territory within a State without the Federal government's authorization.

That's just more of your made up horseshit. There are no historical documents to support such a claim. The fact that right before the war several bills were submitted to Congress to make secession illegal shows that members of Congress believed it was legal.

And the federal government never offered its authorization. Thus, no territorial changes occurred. And the southern states remained under concurrent jurisdiction, sharing sovereignty with the federal government.

Again, the "everything that isn't expressly permitted is prohibited" theory of jurisprudence - a theory that every judge in the United States would laugh at.

Madison utterly obliterates the secession and nullification arguments, explicitly contradicting them. Madison also dismantles the conditional ratification argument, recognizing that the constitution must be ratified in toto and forever. Madison also recognized the concurrent jurisdiction of the State and Federal Government over territory within a State.

You're arguing that you know what the constitution means better than Madison himself did. And you're obviously wrong.

Sorry, but no he doesn't. He expressed an opinion. Madison may have been "the father of the Constitution," whatever that nebulous phrase is supposed to mean, but he didn't write the Constitution. Dozens and even hundreds of people had a hand in crafting the document over a period of months. They all have their own opinions about what the document means. Madison's opinion is no more authoritative than the opinion of any of the other people who worked on it.

A state that seceded would presumably stop paying federal taxes. The power of the federal government to tax is constitutional. Therefore secession becomes illegal by the simple fact that secession includes violations of specific federal, constitutional laws.

A state that seceded would not be part of the United States and would no longer be subject to federal law.

You really are incredibly stupid on this point.

But the state cannot legally secede. That is the point. No one, including states, can arbitrarily, unilaterally declare themselves exempt from the law. That's absurd.

Sure they can. They simply have to secede. That's what secession is. There is no law against secession, so how can it be illegal? You keep ignoring that point. You simply insist that it's illegal with no factual or logical support of any kind.

The only way there is no law against secession is if the 'secession' is simply a statement of feelings. It's like what I pointed out about the Kentucky resolution of 1799 that you claimed was nullification;

in reality Kentucky never nullified the law, they simply passed a statement which did little more than say we don't like that law.

If a state wants to 'secede' in such a substanceless manner, hey, okay, knock yourself out.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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 some to his favorite business cronies.

That's the liberal conceptions "character."

Thank you Rusty. How many roads, towns and schools are named after President Lincoln? How many for Burr or Arnold, two men someone like you must admire?

The North Koreans have pictures and statues of Kim Jon Stepstool everywhere and in every home. Cities are named after him as well as many babies. His likeness graces Korean currency. Even in death he commanded grief, contrived wailing in the streets.

Bripat said you people are cultists. You prove him right over and over.

"you people"? I'm going to play along, simply because it will be fun to toy with you. The "you people" who named roads, schools, towns, etc. after President Lincoln were Americans, Americans representing generations of Americans. Not members of cults, but Americans who are proud to be Americans.

Cultists, are members of the echo chamber, people who don't think for themselves but pretend, even to themselves, that they do. Cultists describe members of the NRA, and those who cherish the confederate flag, and those who dress in 18th center garb and parade around carrying photos of our elected President emblematic of Hitler.

The nra is a lobby not a cult. It never seem to dawn on you progressives why it is the largest lobbying organization in the country

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

I beg to differ:

Cult: a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Again, the federal government is a concurrent sovereign over the States. As the territory had two sovereigns, no territorial decisions can be made without the consent of both. The Federal government can't cede territory within a State without the State's authorization. Nor can the State cede territory within a State without the Federal government's authorization.

That's just more of your made up horseshit. There are no historical documents to support such a claim. The fact that right before the war several bills were submitted to Congress to make secession illegal shows that members of Congress believed it was legal.

And the federal government never offered its authorization. Thus, no territorial changes occurred. And the southern states remained under concurrent jurisdiction, sharing sovereignty with the federal government.

Again, the "everything that isn't expressly permitted is prohibited" theory of jurisprudence - a theory that every judge in the United States would laugh at.

Madison utterly obliterates the secession and nullification arguments, explicitly contradicting them. Madison also dismantles the conditional ratification argument, recognizing that the constitution must be ratified in toto and forever. Madison also recognized the concurrent jurisdiction of the State and Federal Government over territory within a State.

You're arguing that you know what the constitution means better than Madison himself did. And you're obviously wrong.

Sorry, but no he doesn't. He expressed an opinion. Madison may have been "the father of the Constitution," whatever that nebulous phrase is supposed to mean, but he didn't write the Constitution. Dozens and even hundreds of people had a hand in crafting the document over a period of months. They all have their own opinions about what the document means. Madison's opinion is no more authoritative than the opinion of any of the other people who worked on it.

A state that seceded would presumably stop paying federal taxes. The power of the federal government to tax is constitutional. Therefore secession becomes illegal by the simple fact that secession includes violations of specific federal, constitutional laws.

A state that seceded would not be part of the United States and would no longer be subject to federal law.

You really are incredibly stupid on this point.

But the state cannot legally secede. That is the point. No one, including states, can arbitrarily, unilaterally declare themselves exempt from the law. That's absurd.

Sure they can. They simply have to secede. That's what secession is. There is no law against secession, so how can it be illegal? You keep ignoring that point. You simply insist that it's illegal with no factual or logical support of any kind.

If there's no law against owning a gun, how can using that gun to kill someone be a crime?

 

[orogenicman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The degree of anti-American whining here puts ISIS to shame. Congratulations.

 

[paperview]

In toto and forever, bub.
Right from the words of Madison himself when asked if a State could secede:
==================
To Alexander Hamilton

[July 20, 1788]

N. York Sunday Evening

Yours of yesterday is this instant come to hand & I have but a few minutes to answer it. I am sorry that your situation obliges you to listen to propositions of the nature you describe.

My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it
does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this

principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and forever. It has been so adopted by the other

States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption

of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new

States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness.


This idea of reserving right to withdraw was started at Richmd. & considered as a conditional ratification which was itself considered as worse than a rejection.

http://www.constitution.org/jm/17880720_hamilton.txt

But if you think unilateral secession is allowed -

Go ahead. Try it. See what happens

... if you secede, you'd better succeed.

It's in their ratification documents, bub. They was voted on and approved. These states were then accepted into the union. All you have is the opinion of a bunch of bootlicking statist blowhards.

James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay -- and most at the ratifying Convention -- "statist blowhards."


What do you think will happen if you secede?

OOOps. Bripat go *boom*

Three men were "most of the ratifying convention?" As I recall, there were 13 states at the time. Each of them sent a delegate to the convention. Plus there were others there who weren't official delegates like Benjamin Franklin. Notice how many signatures there are on the document. There are a lot more than three.

The NY Ratifying Convention, idiot.

The one who vetoed the idea that a state could secede.

Elliot s Debates Volume 2 Teaching American History

It's in the document they voted on and approved, idiot. It doesn't matter what kind of hearsay evidence you have from some partisan lookers-on, the final document New York approved contains language reserving the right of the state to secede.

"Hearsay evidence. "

Holy christ are you a ball of idiocy.

Convention of New York
Wednesday, July 23, 1783.

—Mr. JONES moved, that the words on condition, in the form of the ratification, should be obliterated, and that the words in full confidence should be substituted— which was carried.

For the Affirmative.

Mr. Jay, Mr. J. Smith, Mr. P. Livingston,
Mr. R. Morris, Mr. Jones, Mr. Hatfield
Mr. Hobart, Mr. Schenck, Mr. Van Cortland
Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Lawrence, Mr. Crane,
Mr. Robt. R. Livingston, Mr. Carman, Mr. Sarls,
Mr. Roosevelt, Mr. Lefferts, Mr. Platt,
Mr. Duane, Mr. Vandervoort Mr. M. Smith
Mr. Harrison, Mr. Bancker, Mr. Gilbert Livingston,
Mr. Low, Mr. Ryerss, Mr. DeWitt,
Mr. Scudder, Mr. L. Morris Mr. Williams.
Mr. Havens,
For the Negative.

Mr. R. Yates, Mr. Wynkoop, Mr. Winn,
Mr. Lansing, Mr. Haring, Mr. Veeder
Mr. I. Thompson, Mr. Woodhull, Mr. Staring
Mr. Ten Eyck, Mr. Wisner, Mr. Parker
Mr. Tredwell, Mr. Wood, Mr. Baker
Mr. President, Mr. Swartwout, Mr. Hopkins,
Mr. Cantine, Mr. Akins, Mr. Van Ness,
Mr. Schoonmaker, Mr. Harper Mr. Bay
Mr. Clark, Mr. C. Yates, Mr. Adgate
Mr. J. Clinton, Mr. Frey,
The committee continued the consideration of the amendments till Thursday; when Mr. LANSING moved to adopt a resolution, that there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the Union after a certain number of years, unless the amendments proposed should previously be submitted to a general convention.


This motion was negatived.

The committee proceeded in the consideration of the amendments till

Ratification of the Constitution

 

[kaz]

There is no legal right to secession, then or now or in the future, unless Congress either permits it or the Constitution is amended.

There is not one word in the 10th Amendment which makes reference to secession. There was discussion both for and against but nothing was placed in the 10th Amendment. There is a legal way through, the act of revolution. If you win, you are home free.

The 10th Amendment only allows the states powers not prohibited by the Constitution, and the Supremacy Clause prohibits the states from making laws contrary to the Constitution or federal law.

I love the way you put things exactly the opposite of how they are.

Here are the facts: The constitution grants a few limited powers to the federal government. It poses no constraints on the states whatsoever except for a very few matters like imposing tariffs and making treaties with foreign governments. The 10th reserves all other powers to the states, whether stated explicitly or not. The federal government has no authority to make any laws that don't conform to the powers enumerated in the Constitution. The Supremacy clause says that the laws the federal government does make, so long as they conform to the Constitution, take precedence over state laws.

There is absolutely no federal law that states can't secede, so the supremacy clause simply doesn't apply to this situation.

Again, the federal government is a concurrent sovereign over the States. As the territory had two sovereigns, no territorial decisions can be made without the consent of both. The Federal government can't cede territory within a State without the State's authorization. Nor can the State cede territory within a State without the Federal government's authorization.

That's just more of your made up horseshit. There are no historical documents to support such a claim. The fact that right before the war several bills were submitted to Congress to make secession illegal shows that members of Congress believed it was legal.

And the federal government never offered its authorization. Thus, no territorial changes occurred. And the southern states remained under concurrent jurisdiction, sharing sovereignty with the federal government.

Again, the "everything that isn't expressly permitted is prohibited" theory of jurisprudence - a theory that every judge in the United States would laugh at.

Madison utterly obliterates the secession and nullification arguments, explicitly contradicting them. Madison also dismantles the conditional ratification argument, recognizing that the constitution must be ratified in toto and forever. Madison also recognized the concurrent jurisdiction of the State and Federal Government over territory within a State.

You're arguing that you know what the constitution means better than Madison himself did. And you're obviously wrong.

Sorry, but no he doesn't. He expressed an opinion. Madison may have been "the father of the Constitution," whatever that nebulous phrase is supposed to mean, but he didn't write the Constitution. Dozens and even hundreds of people had a hand in crafting the document over a period of months. They all have their own opinions about what the document means. Madison's opinion is no more authoritative than the opinion of any of the other people who worked on it.

Don't you love with the left how the standard switches back and forth from:

1) It's a living document and the opinion of what the framers thought or even what the document itself says is irrelevant, only 240 years of case law on it matters

2) The document is not only firmly fixed in time but any opinion of anyone involved in writing it is sacrosanct

 

[kaz]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The degree of anti-American whining here puts ISIS to shame. Congratulations.

Neither ISIS nor bripat are "whining.". Let's hear more about your feelings though, gay boy. How did you feel about your breakfast this morning? How did you feel when you walked the dog? Did seeing the paper make you feel good about that you were about to be informed or sad you were going to learn about the bad things happening in the world? LOL, what a faggot

 

[Wry Catcher]

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 some to his favorite business cronies.

That's the liberal conceptions "character."

Thank you Rusty. How many roads, towns and schools are named after President Lincoln? How many for Burr or Arnold, two men someone like you must admire?

The North Koreans have pictures and statues of Kim Jon Stepstool everywhere and in every home. Cities are named after him as well as many babies. His likeness graces Korean currency. Even in death he commanded grief, contrived wailing in the streets.

Bripat said you people are cultists. You prove him right over and over.

"you people"? I'm going to play along, simply because it will be fun to toy with you. The "you people" who named roads, schools, towns, etc. after President Lincoln were Americans, Americans representing generations of Americans. Not members of cults, but Americans who are proud to be Americans.

Cultists, are members of the echo chamber, people who don't think for themselves but pretend, even to themselves, that they do. Cultists describe members of the NRA, and those who cherish the confederate flag, and those who dress in 18th center garb and parade around carrying photos of our elected President emblematic of Hitler.

Germans were proud to be Germans right up until the last couple of years of WW II. THey named schools, roads and building after Adolph Hitler.

You're a cultist because you deliberately propagate the myth even after being shown repeatedly that Lincoln was a monster. The rest of America is just ignorant and naive.

A misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing is one definition of a cult. However you've never proved Lincoln was anything but a great president, and your opinion on most everything is correlated -1 with reality:

Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Wry Catcher]

There is no legal right to secession, then or now or in the future, unless Congress either permits it or the Constitution is amended.

There is not one word in the 10th Amendment which makes reference to secession. There was discussion both for and against but nothing was placed in the 10th Amendment. There is a legal way through, the act of revolution. If you win, you are home free.

The 10th Amendment only allows the states powers not prohibited by the Constitution, and the Supremacy Clause prohibits the states from making laws contrary to the Constitution or federal law.

I love the way you put things exactly the opposite of how they are.

Here are the facts: The constitution grants a few limited powers to the federal government. It poses no constraints on the states whatsoever except for a very few matters like imposing tariffs and making treaties with foreign governments. The 10th reserves all other powers to the states, whether stated explicitly or not. The federal government has no authority to make any laws that don't conform to the powers enumerated in the Constitution. The Supremacy clause says that the laws the federal government does make, so long as they conform to the Constitution, take precedence over state laws.

There is absolutely no federal law that states can't secede, so the supremacy clause simply doesn't apply to this situation.

Have you ever taken ConLaw?
Have you ever read the COTUS?
Do you know the meaning of the word ambiguous?

We know the Premable has been determined not to be law. But what is it?

Can you explain the purpose of and meaning for the phrases, "insure domestic Tranquility", "provide for the common defence", "promote the general Welfare", and "Secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".

I think of the preamble as the Mission Statement, a vision for a future of this singular effort of a nation state to govern itself, morally, fairly and into the distant future.

You and a few others see it is a document to be used to justify an ideology that contradicts the Mission Statement itself. For this reason alone you have no right to call yourself a patriot.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's the specific refutation to the third 'irrefutable' point in the OP:

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?”

The fact that some may have believed secession wasn't prohibited does nothing to prove irrefutably that secession was not prohibited.

 

[kaz]

A misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing is one definition of a cult

It's incredible to me how Democrats unable to question or criticize the Democratic party would say something like this without getting an intense flaming feeling in your ass over the overt hypocrisy of the statement. Wow, you really have no self actualization at all

 

[Faun]

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

That was a Democrat pulling the trigger

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

That was an imbecile who posted your post.

 

[Faun]

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

It wasn't South Carolina's property; so they couldn't remove them.

 

[Faun]

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.

No, it was not.

Sure it was, they were on the land of a sovereign State they had been told to leave. If that's not being an occupying army, what is?

Not just the fort, but the site and adjacent territory was ceded to the U.S..

 

[Faun]

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.

And you've been shown a 1000 times where South Carolina ceded the "territory" to the U.S.. It's no one else's fault you are ineducable.

 

[Wry Catcher]

A misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing is one definition of a cult

It's incredible to me how Democrats unable to question or criticize the Democratic party would say something like this without getting an intense flaming feeling in your ass over the overt hypocrisy of the statement. Wow, you really have no self actualization at all

Thanks once again for the ad hominem. Calling others names, demeaning their character or intelligence is an example of someone thoughtless; suggesting I have not achieved "self actualization" is ridiculous, I suggest you read Maslow's Hiearchy of Needs before continuing to embarrass yourself by trying and failing to convince anyone you're educated.

 

[Faun]

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?

It means they can't unilaterally confiscate the territory.