Modern conservatives sympathizing with The Confederacy... Is this a thing now?

[Correll]

Newsflash Brian: People get killed when you start a war.

Dumbfuck rebels thought they could start one to keep and expand their precious slave trade.

Tough titties. They lost. You refighting it 150 years later isn't going to change one White Supremacist ass-loving thing about it.

No, you refighting it 150 years later isn't going to change anything.

WHy are you in this thread? Why are you so hot about this topic?

 

[there4eyeM]

Late to the party; this has already been discussed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If a state could secede from the nation, could a county secede from a state, could a city secede from a county and could I secede my house and lot from a city. Hot damn, I'd have my own little country on 59th.street. Think of it, many of us with our own nations.

The states created the union, the states could leave the union, the power was always with the states.

Wrong. The states delegated to the federal government supreme power. That included the power to preserve the union.

 

[Correll]

If a state could secede from the nation, could a county secede from a state, could a city secede from a county and could I secede my house and lot from a city. Hot damn, I'd have my own little country on 59th.street. Think of it, many of us with our own nations.

The states created the union, the states could leave the union, the power was always with the states.

Wrong. The states delegated to the federal government supreme power. That included the power to preserve the union.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

 

[Skylar]

This is a quote I just came across from one of our Founding Father's, from South Carolina -- from 1788 - as the ink was still fresh on our new Constitution...some might find it surprising.

"In that Declaration the several states are not even enumerated; but after reciting, in nervous language, and with convincing arguments, our right to independence, and the tyranny which compelled us to assert it, the declaration is made in the following words:

"We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES."

The separate independence and individual sovereignty of the several states were never thought of by the enlightened band of patriots who framed this Declaration; the several states are not even mentioned by name in any part of it,-

-as if it was intended to impress this maxim on America, that our freedom and independence arose from our union, and that without it we could neither be free nor independent.

Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
​

Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, South Carolina

]18 Jan. 1788

The Founders' Constitution
Volume 1, Chapter 7, Document 19
Union Charles Cotesworth Pinckney South Carolina House of Representatives
The University of Chicago Press Elliot, Jonathan, ed. The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787.

Union Charles Cotesworth Pinckney South Carolina House of Representatives

IF that was his opinion, and he felt so strongly about it, he should have advanced a clause spelling that out clearly in the Constitution.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it clearly state that the Union was forever.

James Madison made it ludicrously clear that it was. And the States understood that when they signed.

 

[Correll]

This is a quote I just came across from one of our Founding Father's, from South Carolina -- from 1788 - as the ink was still fresh on our new Constitution...some might find it surprising.

"In that Declaration the several states are not even enumerated; but after reciting, in nervous language, and with convincing arguments, our right to independence, and the tyranny which compelled us to assert it, the declaration is made in the following words:

"We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES."

The separate independence and individual sovereignty of the several states were never thought of by the enlightened band of patriots who framed this Declaration; the several states are not even mentioned by name in any part of it,-

-as if it was intended to impress this maxim on America, that our freedom and independence arose from our union, and that without it we could neither be free nor independent.

Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
​

Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, South Carolina

]18 Jan. 1788

The Founders' Constitution
Volume 1, Chapter 7, Document 19
Union Charles Cotesworth Pinckney South Carolina House of Representatives
The University of Chicago Press Elliot, Jonathan, ed. The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787.

Union Charles Cotesworth Pinckney South Carolina House of Representatives

IF that was his opinion, and he felt so strongly about it, he should have advanced a clause spelling that out clearly in the Constitution.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it clearly state that the Union was forever.

James Madison made it ludicrously clear that it was. And the States understood that when they signed.

THey understood it?

Why did they have to "understand it"?

Oh, because it wasn't stated anywhere in the written Constitution.

 

[there4eyeM]

Perpetual...

 

[NYcarbineer]

If a state could secede from the nation, could a county secede from a state, could a city secede from a county and could I secede my house and lot from a city. Hot damn, I'd have my own little country on 59th.street. Think of it, many of us with our own nations.

The states created the union, the states could leave the union, the power was always with the states.

Wrong. The states delegated to the federal government supreme power. That included the power to preserve the union.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

What legal and binding document are you quoting?

 

[thanatos144]

If a state could secede from the nation, could a county secede from a state, could a city secede from a county and could I secede my house and lot from a city. Hot damn, I'd have my own little country on 59th.street. Think of it, many of us with our own nations.

The states created the union, the states could leave the union, the power was always with the states.

Wrong. The states delegated to the federal government supreme power. That included the power to preserve the union.

Not even remotely true

 

[Skylar]

THey understood it?

Why did they have to "understand it"?

It was explicitly communicated to them. The anti-federalists argued that the the States should remain sovereign. The federalists argued against it.

The Federalists won. With the Constitution largely written by the nation's leading Federalist, in accordance with the Federalist Papers. With a thorough majority of the founders supporting the Federalist vision.

Worse for your argument, in NY, Antifederalist John Lansing Jr tried to put language into their ratification of the Constitution that would grant them the authority to secede if they chose. Madison shut them down, declaring in a letter read by Hamilton to the NY ratification representatives that the the constitution must be adopted in toto and for ever. And that Congress would not consider a conditional ratification to be valid.

Here's the letter:

First, Hamilton's question regarding 'receding', or leaving the union.

"You will understand that the only qualification will be the reservation of a right to recede, in case our amendments have not been decided upon, in one of the modes pointed out by the Constitution, within a certain number of years, perhaps five or seven. If this can, in the first instance, be admitted as a ratification, I do not fear any further consequences. Congress will, I presume, recommend certain amendments to render the structure of the Government more secure. This will satisfy the more considerate and honest opposers of the Constitution, and with the aid of them will break up the party.

The Right of Secession. - NYTimes.com

And now the relevant portion of Madison's reply, which didn't contained the slightest ambiguity:

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 New-York a member of the new Union, and consequently that she should not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal; this principle would not in such 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 vitiate the ratification.

Madison's letter was read publicly. Lansing's secessionist language was removed. And NY ratified the constitution.

This wasn't a grand secret. This was thoroughly understood, debated, and discussed at the time. The Anti-Federalists took your position. The Federalists, Madison's.

The Federalists won.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

If a state could secede from the nation, could a county secede from a state, could a city secede from a county and could I secede my house and lot from a city. Hot damn, I'd have my own little country on 59th.street. Think of it, many of us with our own nations.

The states created the union, the states could leave the union, the power was always with the states.

Wrong. The states delegated to the federal government supreme power. That included the power to preserve the union.

ROFLMNAO!

Based upon WHAT?

(Reader, there above cited imbecile will now have no means to sustain its now refuted assertion... YAAaaawn! Enjoy... . )

 

[Correll]

If a state could secede from the nation, could a county secede from a state, could a city secede from a county and could I secede my house and lot from a city. Hot damn, I'd have my own little country on 59th.street. Think of it, many of us with our own nations.

The states created the union, the states could leave the union, the power was always with the states.

Wrong. The states delegated to the federal government supreme power. That included the power to preserve the union.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

What legal and binding document are you quoting?

I am quoting the Declaration of Independence.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

If a state could secede from the nation, could a county secede from a state, could a city secede from a county and could I secede my house and lot from a city. Hot damn, I'd have my own little country on 59th.street. Think of it, many of us with our own nations.

The states created the union, the states could leave the union, the power was always with the states.

Wrong. The states delegated to the federal government supreme power. That included the power to preserve the union.

Blimey that was retarded! Not only did the states never sign any pact that relinquished their right to extricate themselves from it, several states, notably Virginia and New York specifically reserved their right to secede. This point is driven even further home by the fact that New England states were the first to threaten secession in protest to the 1812 war. Nobody questioned their right to secede because it was clearly understood.

I don't know how you thought you could pull that out of your cock dilated ass and get away with it.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

If a state could secede from the nation, could a county secede from a state, could a city secede from a county and could I secede my house and lot from a city. Hot damn, I'd have my own little country on 59th.street. Think of it, many of us with our own nations.

The states created the union, the states could leave the union, the power was always with the states.

Wrong. The states delegated to the federal government supreme power. That included the power to preserve the union.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

What legal and binding document are you quoting?

I am quoting the Declaration of Independence.

Correll, the cult doesn't recognize the Charter of American principles as 'legally binding'.

You see, Relativism rejects the objectivity essential to seeing principled, self-evident Truth.

Such is quite simply, the nature of Evil.

 

[paperview]

If a state could secede from the nation, could a county secede from a state, could a city secede from a county and could I secede my house and lot from a city. Hot damn, I'd have my own little country on 59th.street. Think of it, many of us with our own nations.

The states created the union, the states could leave the union, the power was always with the states.

Wrong. The states delegated to the federal government supreme power. That included the power to preserve the union.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

What legal and binding document are you quoting?

I am quoting the Declaration of Independence.

Derr. I think he knows that.

The question still applies.

And if you think "The states delegated to the federal government supreme power" is wrong, then you haven't read the one important and legally binding Document you should be paying attention to...

 

[Skylar]

If a state could secede from the nation, could a county secede from a state, could a city secede from a county and could I secede my house and lot from a city. Hot damn, I'd have my own little country on 59th.street. Think of it, many of us with our own nations.

The states created the union, the states could leave the union, the power was always with the states.

Wrong. The states delegated to the federal government supreme power. That included the power to preserve the union.

Blimey that was retarded! Not only did the states never sign any pact that relinquished their right to extricate themselves from it, several states, notably Virginia and New York specifically reserved their right to secede. This point is driven even further home by the fact that New England states were the first to threaten secession in protest to the 1812 war. Nobody questioned their right to secede because it was clearly understood.

I don't know how you thought you could pull that out of your cock dilated ass and get away with it.

Here's New York's ratification of the Constitution:

Avalon Project - Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York July 26 1788

Show us NY 'specifically reserving the right to secede'.

Remember, NY pulled Lansing's rider once Madison made it clear that the Constitution must be adopted in toto and forever.....or it wouldn't count as ratification.

 

[paperview]

If a state could secede from the nation, could a county secede from a state, could a city secede from a county and could I secede my house and lot from a city. Hot damn, I'd have my own little country on 59th.street. Think of it, many of us with our own nations.

The states created the union, the states could leave the union, the power was always with the states.

Wrong. The states delegated to the federal government supreme power. That included the power to preserve the union.

Blimey that was retarded! Not only did the states never sign any pact that relinquished their right to extricate themselves from it, several states, notably Virginia and New York specifically reserved their right to secede. This point is driven even further home by the fact that New England states were the first to threaten secession in protest to the 1812 war. Nobody questioned their right to secede because it was clearly understood.

I don't know how you thought you could pull that out of your cock dilated ass and get away with it.

Keeeerist.

It's been stated in this thread about 15 times now.


New York explicit and directly SAID we want an opt out -- we want the right to secede.

Look it up:

"there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

To repeat:

"At the risk of alienating swing voters and losing on the ultimate ratification vote, Federalists emphatically opposed the compromise.

In doing so, they made clear to everyone - in New York and in the 12 other states where people were following the New York contest with interest - that the Constitution did not permit unilateral state secession.

Alexander Hamilton read aloud a letter at the Poughkeepsie convention that he had received from James Madison stating that "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever."

----> The vote for the NY secession provision was vetoed. Ka-put.

"the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever."

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The states created the union, the states could leave the union, the power was always with the states.

Wrong. The states delegated to the federal government supreme power. That included the power to preserve the union.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

What legal and binding document are you quoting?

I am quoting the Declaration of Independence.

Derr. I think he knows that.

The question still applies.

And if you think "The states delegated to the federal government supreme power" is wrong, then you haven't read the one important and legally binding Document you should be paying attention to...

The States ratified a Constitution which specifically limited the power of the Federal Government, specifically to preclude the Federal Government from becoming supremely powerful over the states.

If you lack the intellectual means to understand that FUNDAMENTAL AMERICAN PRINCIPLE... then you simply lack the means to remain a viable contributor to this discussion.

It's not even a debatable point.

 

[Correll]

THey understood it?

Why did they have to "understand it"?

It was explicitly communicated to them. The anti-federalists argued that the the States should remain sovereign. The federalists argued against it.

The Federalists won. With the Constitution largely written by the nation's leading Federalist, in accordance with the Federalist Papers. With a thorough majority of the founders supporting the Federalist vision.

Worse for your argument, in NY, Antifederalist John Lansing Jr tried to put language into their ratification of the Constitution that would grant them the authority to secede if they chose. Madison shut them down, declaring in a letter read by Hamilton to the NY ratification representatives that the the constitution must be adopted in toto and for ever. And that Congress would not consider a conditional ratification to be valid.

Here's the letter:

First, Hamilton's question regarding 'receding', or leaving the union.

"You will understand that the only qualification will be the reservation of a right to recede, in case our amendments have not been decided upon, in one of the modes pointed out by the Constitution, within a certain number of years, perhaps five or seven. If this can, in the first instance, be admitted as a ratification, I do not fear any further consequences. Congress will, I presume, recommend certain amendments to render the structure of the Government more secure. This will satisfy the more considerate and honest opposers of the Constitution, and with the aid of them will break up the party.

The Right of Secession. - NYTimes.com

And now the relevant portion of Madison's reply, which didn't contained the slightest ambiguity:

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 New-York a member of the new Union, and consequently that she should not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal; this principle would not in such 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 vitiate the ratification.

Madison's letter was read publicly. Lansing's secessionist language was removed. And NY ratified the constitution.

This wasn't a grand secret. This was thoroughly understood, debated, and discussed at the time. The Anti-Federalists took your position. The Federalists, Madison's.

The Federalists won.

I like how strongly you point out that his letter "didn't contained the slightest ambiguity".

To bad the same can't be said of the actual written document that was actually voted on, and enshrined in law.

You lefties seem to like that term, "in toto, and FOREVER".

Can you find it in the Constitution?

 

[Skylar]

THey understood it?

Why did they have to "understand it"?

It was explicitly communicated to them. The anti-federalists argued that the the States should remain sovereign. The federalists argued against it.

The Federalists won. With the Constitution largely written by the nation's leading Federalist, in accordance with the Federalist Papers. With a thorough majority of the founders supporting the Federalist vision.

Worse for your argument, in NY, Antifederalist John Lansing Jr tried to put language into their ratification of the Constitution that would grant them the authority to secede if they chose. Madison shut them down, declaring in a letter read by Hamilton to the NY ratification representatives that the the constitution must be adopted in toto and for ever. And that Congress would not consider a conditional ratification to be valid.

Here's the letter:

First, Hamilton's question regarding 'receding', or leaving the union.

"You will understand that the only qualification will be the reservation of a right to recede, in case our amendments have not been decided upon, in one of the modes pointed out by the Constitution, within a certain number of years, perhaps five or seven. If this can, in the first instance, be admitted as a ratification, I do not fear any further consequences. Congress will, I presume, recommend certain amendments to render the structure of the Government more secure. This will satisfy the more considerate and honest opposers of the Constitution, and with the aid of them will break up the party.

The Right of Secession. - NYTimes.com

And now the relevant portion of Madison's reply, which didn't contained the slightest ambiguity:

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 New-York a member of the new Union, and consequently that she should not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal; this principle would not in such 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 vitiate the ratification.

Madison's letter was read publicly. Lansing's secessionist language was removed. And NY ratified the constitution.

This wasn't a grand secret. This was thoroughly understood, debated, and discussed at the time. The Anti-Federalists took your position. The Federalists, Madison's.

The Federalists won.

I like how strongly you point out that his letter "didn't contained the slightest ambiguity".

To bad the same can't be said of the actual written document that was actually voted on, and enshrined in law.

The constitution makes no mention of secession. Not one. If you believe it does, show us. Don't tell us.

You lefties seem to like that term, "in toto, and FOREVER".

Actually I like quoting James Madison. He's a far better source on what the constitution meant in the Founder's era than you are.

And Madison explicitly rejects your claims. Why would I ignore Madison and instead believe you?