Lost Cause: What Were They Thinking?

[paperview]

It wasn't another country. No one recognized it as such.

You can't just let states take federal property. That is property of the whole of the people.

What if Kentucky decided to just declare independence and say, hey, Fort Knox belongs to us now. Too bad.

Can't do it. Besides, as I showed earlier, South Carolina ceded all rights to Fort Sumter in 1836. It wasn't hers to just take.

Nor were the forts and military instillations or the Mint filled with Gold they seized. Or the US Ships they fired on, and captured for their own use as Man of War vessels in January 1861.

You can't just go stealing federal government property and say: hey, it's ours now. Go fuck yourselves.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Repeater alert!

 

[paperview]

Gripping rebuttal.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It wasn't another country. No one recognized it as such.

You can't just let states take federal property. That is property of the whole of the people.

What if Kentucky decided to just declare independence and say, hey, Fort Knox belongs to us now. Too bad.

Can't do it. Besides, as I showed earlier, South Carolina ceded all rights to Fort Sumter in 1836. It wasn't hers to just take.

Nor were the forts and military instillations or the Mint filled with Gold they seized. Or the US Ships they fired on, and captured for their own use as Man of War vessels in January 1861.

You can't just go stealing federal government property and say: hey, it's ours now. Go fuck yourselves.

OH but yes it was.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nope. Federal property is federal property and the states had no constitutional or legal right to that property. When the CSA fired on Ft Sumter, the gray began a treasonous war and suffered their just consequences.

 

[paperview]

It wasn't another country. No one recognized it as such.

You can't just let states take federal property. That is property of the whole of the people.

What if Kentucky decided to just declare independence and say, hey, Fort Knox belongs to us now. Too bad.

Can't do it. Besides, as I showed earlier, South Carolina ceded all rights to Fort Sumter in 1836. It wasn't hers to just take.

Nor were the forts and military instillations or the Mint filled with Gold they seized. Or the US Ships they fired on, and captured for their own use as Man of War vessels in January 1861.

You can't just go stealing federal government property and say: hey, it's ours now. Go fuck yourselves.

OH but yes it was.

“Resentment is like drinking poison and then hoping it will kill your enemies.” -Neslon Mandela

 

[paperview]

All your democratic southern brethren who fought that war are dead now...I'm sure even some of them, from on high, are whispering,through the clouds: "Let it go."

 

[TakeAStepBack]

it's like I said, Northern apologists believe they are endowed with the authority to legally and morally hold the North's actions as just. Ther eis no amount of factual information that will discourage these folks from their platform.

To them, the north was right and just in its war, and the south were triators for not surrendering to the federal government. These are the same statists that still exist today and claim the federal government to be of omniscience and omnipotents of that like a god. They worship at the state alter.

It matters not to them that the confederate peace commissioners were sent by Davis to resolve such issues as the federal property, etc..Both Lincoln and Seward turned a blind eye in recognizing this effort because in doing so would have meant accepting that the south had in fact, left the union and should be recognized proper as a sovereign entity. this pissed off Lincoln the most and that is why so much presure was put on Brtiain and France about acknowledging the south as independent. They HAD to make sure that they were viewed as a rebellion..even after the southern states went to congress declaring secession, and removing themselves willfully from federal US posts and returning home to their states..where they believed in sovereignty, not federal central authority. The North was the one who wanted war, not the south.

All instances in the historical record prove this.

 

[Unkotare]

If the states had not been recognized as individual countries with a central government why did each state have it's own state constitution? After all the U.S. Constitution trumps everything, right? why was their any need for a state constitution?

Once again you fail at even basic logic. State governments never indicated that each state was a separate country (this wasn't the case even under the Articles) any more than local charters 'prove' that every little town is a nation unto itself.

Let's see: History, Logic, Political Science...is there any subject you do know anything about besides playing dress-up?

You're failing junior. ok I guess I'll have to talk down to you.
If the states were not considered individual sovereign nations why did they have state Constitutions? After all with the U.S. Constitution and it being the law of the law there would not be any need for another Constitution? Right?
They would have suspend the state Constitution wouldn't they have?

Of course they would have kept the state governments to maintain the everyday busniess of the states, but to have a state constitution seems kind of a waste wouldn't you agree?

You plan to do this again? Ask the same question over and over after it has already been answered? I note your pattern of turning to obvious trolling when you've run out of things to say.

 

[paperview]

You should be lucky Lincoln succeeded in keeping the Union together. You wouldn't be here right now, in the greatest Country on the earth.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Once again you fail at even basic logic. State governments never indicated that each state was a separate country (this wasn't the case even under the Articles) any more than local charters 'prove' that every little town is a nation unto itself.

Let's see: History, Logic, Political Science...is there any subject you do know anything about besides playing dress-up?

You're failing junior. ok I guess I'll have to talk down to you.
If the states were not considered individual sovereign nations why did they have state Constitutions? After all with the U.S. Constitution and it being the law of the law there would not be any need for another Constitution? Right?
They would have suspend the state Constitution wouldn't they have?

Of course they would have kept the state governments to maintain the everyday busniess of the states, but to have a state constitution seems kind of a waste wouldn't you agree?

You plan to do this again? Ask the same question over and over after it has already been answered? I note your pattern of turning to obvious trolling when you've run out of things to say.

OK since you have failed at proving your point and refuse to answer this question you just concede defeat.

If you can't answer the question just say you can't. Or even better stop making these knee jerk reaction threads if you can't handle those tough questions.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It wasn't another country. No one recognized it as such.

You can't just let states take federal property. That is property of the whole of the people.

What if Kentucky decided to just declare independence and say, hey, Fort Knox belongs to us now. Too bad.

Can't do it. Besides, as I showed earlier, South Carolina ceded all rights to Fort Sumter in 1836. It wasn't hers to just take.

Nor were the forts and military instillations or the Mint filled with Gold they seized. Or the US Ships they fired on, and captured for their own use as Man of War vessels in January 1861.

You can't just go stealing federal government property and say: hey, it's ours now. Go fuck yourselves.

OH but yes it was.

“Resentment is like drinking poison and then hoping it will kill your enemies.” -Neslon Mandela

Words of a communist, of course you would fall back on them.

 

[Unkotare]

You're failing junior. ok I guess I'll have to talk down to you.
If the states were not considered individual sovereign nations why did they have state Constitutions? After all with the U.S. Constitution and it being the law of the law there would not be any need for another Constitution? Right?
They would have suspend the state Constitution wouldn't they have?

Of course they would have kept the state governments to maintain the everyday busniess of the states, but to have a state constitution seems kind of a waste wouldn't you agree?

You plan to do this again? Ask the same question over and over after it has already been answered? I note your pattern of turning to obvious trolling when you've run out of things to say.

OK since you have failed at proving your point and refuse to answer this question.

I answered the question, troll. Find something new to say or fuck off.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You plan to do this again? Ask the same question over and over after it has already been answered? I note your pattern of turning to obvious trolling when you've run out of things to say.

OK since you have failed at proving your point and refuse to answer this question.

I answered the question, troll. Find something new to say or fuck off.

Do you understand the ground rules of a debate? You make your position known, I make a rebuttal you counter that rebuttal

If the states had not been recognized as individual countries with a central government why did each state have it's own state constitution? After all the U.S. Constitution trumps everything, right? why was their any need for a state constitution?

Once again you fail at even basic logic. State governments never indicated that each state was a separate country (this wasn't the case even under the Articles) any more than local charters 'prove' that every little town is a nation unto itself.

Let's see: History, Logic, Political Science...is there any subject you do know anything about besides playing dress-up?

My rebuttle
EACH STATE did recognize the sovereignty of thee individual states that is why they have state constitutions and did not do away with them when they created the U.S. Constitution. There is no reason for a state to have one
Now you.

 

[Unkotare]

My rebuttle [sic]
EACH STATE did recognize the sovereignty of thee individual states that is why they have state constitutions and did not do away with them when they created the U.S. Constitution. There is no reason for a state to have one
Now you.

That's not a rebuttal, dope. You merely restated your first mistaken assertion. You want to just go round and round endlessly?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

My rebuttle [sic]
EACH STATE did recognize the sovereignty of thee individual states that is why they have state constitutions and did not do away with them when they created the U.S. Constitution. There is no reason for a state to have one
Now you.

That's not a rebuttal, dope. You merely restated your first mistaken assertion. You want to just go round and round endlessly?

You're failing, you haven't dis-proven anything. stop complaining about me going round and round when you can't handle my rebuttal.
Now your turn.


What is the purpose of a Constitution?

 

[Meathead]

My rebuttle [sic]
EACH STATE did recognize the sovereignty of thee individual states that is why they have state constitutions and did not do away with them when they created the U.S. Constitution. There is no reason for a state to have one
Now you.

That's not a rebuttal, dope. You merely restated your first mistaken assertion. You want to just go round and round endlessly?

No, you have failed in your assertion of treason. It was a stupid fight to pick in the first place.

 

[Unkotare]

My rebuttle [sic]
EACH STATE did recognize the sovereignty of thee individual states that is why they have state constitutions and did not do away with them when they created the U.S. Constitution. There is no reason for a state to have one
Now you.

That's not a rebuttal, dope. You merely restated your first mistaken assertion. You want to just go round and round endlessly?

You're failing, you haven't dis-proven anything. stop complaining about me going round and round when you can't handle my rebuttal.
Now your turn.


What is the purpose of a Constitution?

Read carefully: Merely repeating your initial assertion is NOT a rebuttal, shitforbrains.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That's not a rebuttal, dope. You merely restated your first mistaken assertion. You want to just go round and round endlessly?

You're failing, you haven't dis-proven anything. stop complaining about me going round and round when you can't handle my rebuttal.
Now your turn.


What is the purpose of a Constitution?

Read carefully: Merely repeating your initial assertion is NOT a rebuttal, shitforbrains.

You're failing champ sorry it is what it is.

 

[JakeStarkey]

it's like I said, Northern apologists believe they are endowed with the authority to legally and morally hold the North's actions as just. Ther eis no amount of factual information that will discourage these folks from their platform.

To them, the north was right and just in its war, and the south were triators for not surrendering to the federal government. These are the same statists that still exist today and claim the federal government to be of omniscience and omnipotents of that like a god. They worship at the state alter.

It matters not to them that the confederate peace commissioners were sent by Davis to resolve such issues as the federal property, etc..Both Lincoln and Seward turned a blind eye in recognizing this effort because in doing so would have meant accepting that the south had in fact, left the union and should be recognized proper as a sovereign entity. this pissed off Lincoln the most and that is why so much presure was put on Brtiain and France about acknowledging the south as independent. They HAD to make sure that they were viewed as a rebellion..even after the southern states went to congress declaring secession, and removing themselves willfully from federal US posts and returning home to their states..where they believed in sovereignty, not federal central authority. The North was the one who wanted war, not the south.

All instances in the historical record prove this.

You can yell all you want, and your still wrong.

The South suffered righteously for its evil actions.