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

[bripat9643]

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

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?

Because the Constitution is a written document, and despite what Madison wanted it to mean, we can read the actual document and SEE WITH OUR OWN EYES, that the position he held was NOT put in there.

And when folks look at the constitution 'with their own eyes', they find absolutely no mention of secession whatsoever. Not the slightest peep.

So the constitution says absolutely nothing about secession, and the "Father of the Constitution" says no such right exists. With the States that tried to reserve the right to secede pulling such amendments, as the would not have been ratification of the Constitution.

You've given us exactly jack shit to back your claims with. You have absolutely nothing affirming your argument. Nothing in the constitution says what you do. And we have excellent sources from the era of the founding that demmonstrate that the issue was discussed, debated, and your claims refuted.

I agree, there is no mention of secession in the Constitution. Thank you for admitting that.

"Admitting' that? I've been the one telling you that. Your argument has so utterly imploded that you're trying to adopt my argument as you own.

And well you should. The evidence overwhelmingly supports my position.

The question, IMO, was open to reasonable disagreement.

Ignoring the history of the ratification of the constitution, the debates on this very issue, and the explicit and repeated rejection of the idea by the 'father of the constitution' isn't what I'd call 'reasonable'.

Reasonable would be following the preponderance of the evidence. And it lines up overwhelmingly on one side of the issue. As even southerners of the era of ratification admitted 'The Union of the States: the Majority must govern; secession is treason."

And this from a leading leading Virginian judge Spencer Roane, and leader of State's rights in the State.

Even the USSC recognized that the status of the State as sovereign changed once they joined under the constitution, as articulated in Gibbon v. Ogden in 1824.

I've provided overwhelming, overlapping, and among the most widely respected sources there are on the matter. You've provided nothing to refute any of it.

The Supreme Court derives its power from the Constitution. The Constitution derives its power from the states. It's more than unseemly to suggest the Supreme Court can weigh in on whether or not states can secede. Even floating that argument betrays an ignorance of the formation of the Union on a fundamental level. The states can, at their leisure, convene an Article 5 convention and do away with the Supreme Court if they so wish. The states have the power and always have.

What do you want to bet the Supreme Court would rule such an amendment "unconstitutional?"

 

[NYcarbineer]

Perpetual...

Where is that in the Constitution?

It's found right at the end of a Spencer rifle.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Another thing the neo confederates won't tell you about when they talk about the "fight to be free" as they hold up the CSA as a noble cause --

For decades before the war, Free speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Association was not allowed in the South.

Any and all anti-slavery books, pamphlets, organizations, or even speaking ill or gathering to discuss anything against the "peculiar institution" of Slavery could land you in jail.

Real freedom those Southerners embraced, eh?

Hell, the South had even imposed a Gag order in the US Congress preventing people from even speaking about it on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Yes, for real and true.

It's speaking of the means of the people to determine what is reasonable discourse... the Left is often set aside by culture's which refuse to allow them to speak publicly, to print pamphlets, etc.

This is how such culture's remain viable.

In the post civil war period, there will be no tolerance of the Ideological Left anywhere in the United States. Which will not be a problem, given the absence of any Leftists... but the law will exist in full force and effect, nonetheless.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Perpetual...

Where is that in the Constitution?

It's found right at the end of a Spencer rifle.

So you feel that it's in the second amendment?

LOL!

Adorable... I never seem to get my fill of watching Leftist try to think.

 

[paperview]

Hey Lost Keys, nobody gives a flip what you say.

Most here think you're a mental defective posting from an insane asylum.

You're even more crackpot than bripat -- and that's saying a lot.

 

[Correll]

Perpetual...

Where is that in the Constitution?

It's found right at the end of a Spencer rifle.

And again the Might Makes Right argument.

THe last lib I called on it admitted that he didn't really believe it.

Do you?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... Keys, nobody gives a flip what you say.

Yes yes... LOL! I hear ya.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Skylar]

It believes that might makes right.

So did the South. How do you think they held millions in slavery....Harsh language?

No, through systematic and simply brutal acts of force, mutilation and killing. The South's entire system of government and economy was based on naked, brute force.

As for the North's actions, the South was in rebellion. If you're curious how the Founders handle rebellions, ask Shay how that worked out for him. What nation wouldn't respond with force in the face of rebellion or military attack?

Unless you're gonna call Washington a 'leftist', your entire argument is another giggle worthy inspiration of ignorance.

Remove the threat of death from the power of the IRS over the individual and the US Federal Government wold be bankrupt within the subsequent qrtr... and with that death, do dies the Ideological Left, with no means to bribe their constituents with monthly stipends... and a LIVING WAGE, etc.

Um, in comparison to what and when? Taxation has always been compulsory. Just ask the poor bastards who faced Washington in the Whiskey Rebellion. Once again you're condemning the north for actions that every nation that has ever existed would have had to employ:

Mandatory taxation. And enforcement of laws through force.

You just clued into this? This isn't 'leftist'. This is any government, ever.

And that is because in truth, thus in reality THERE IS NO RIGHT TO SUCH SUBSIDY... and absent the MIGHT... there is no means to so much a proclaim the right, without getting beat to a bloody pulp for so much as doing so, by the people one demands should be stripped of their property to provide such.

You seem confused. People have rights. Governments are delegated powers. And the power to levy such taxes definitely exists and is definitely delegated to the federal government.

Remember, Keyes...and this point is fundamental: you don't actually have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Perpetual...

Where is that in the Constitution?

It's found right at the end of a Spencer rifle.

And again the Might Makes Right argument.

THe last lib I called on it admitted that he didn't really believe it.

Do you?

Do you deny the constitutional right of the government to defend the nation against domestic enemies?
[/QUOTE]

It's found right at the end of a Spencer rifle.[/QUOTE]


And again the Might Makes Right argument.

THe last lib I called on it admitted that he didn't really believe it.

Do you?[/QUOTE]

Do you deny the constitutional right of our government to defend the people against an armed rebellion?

 

[bripat9643]

Perpetual...

Where is that in the Constitution?

It's found right at the end of a Spencer rifle.

That's where all liberal "ethical principles" can be found - at the business end of a gun.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Perpetual...

Where is that in the Constitution?

It's found right at the end of a Spencer rifle.

So you feel that it's in the second amendment?

LOL!

Adorable... I never seem to get my fill of watching Leftist try to think.

The Constitution gives the government the right to put down armed rebellion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Perpetual...

Where is that in the Constitution?

It's found right at the end of a Spencer rifle.

That's where all liberal "ethical principles" can be found - at the business end of a gun.

The Constitution explicitly gives the government the right to put down armed rebellion.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Because the Constitution is a written document, and despite what Madison wanted it to mean, we can read the actual document and SEE WITH OUR OWN EYES, that the position he held was NOT put in there.

And when folks look at the constitution 'with their own eyes', they find absolutely no mention of secession whatsoever. Not the slightest peep.

So the constitution says absolutely nothing about secession, and the "Father of the Constitution" says no such right exists. With the States that tried to reserve the right to secede pulling such amendments, as the would not have been ratification of the Constitution.

You've given us exactly jack shit to back your claims with. You have absolutely nothing affirming your argument. Nothing in the constitution says what you do. And we have excellent sources from the era of the founding that demmonstrate that the issue was discussed, debated, and your claims refuted.

I agree, there is no mention of secession in the Constitution. Thank you for admitting that.

"Admitting' that? I've been the one telling you that. Your argument has so utterly imploded that you're trying to adopt my argument as you own.

And well you should. The evidence overwhelmingly supports my position.

The question, IMO, was open to reasonable disagreement.

Ignoring the history of the ratification of the constitution, the debates on this very issue, and the explicit and repeated rejection of the idea by the 'father of the constitution' isn't what I'd call 'reasonable'.

Reasonable would be following the preponderance of the evidence. And it lines up overwhelmingly on one side of the issue. As even southerners of the era of ratification admitted 'The Union of the States: the Majority must govern; secession is treason."

And this from a leading leading Virginian judge Spencer Roane, and leader of State's rights in the State.

Even the USSC recognized that the status of the State as sovereign changed once they joined under the constitution, as articulated in Gibbon v. Ogden in 1824.

I've provided overwhelming, overlapping, and among the most widely respected sources there are on the matter. You've provided nothing to refute any of it.

The Supreme Court derives its power from the Constitution. The Constitution derives its power from the states. It's more than unseemly to suggest the Supreme Court can weigh in on whether or not states can secede. Even floating that argument betrays an ignorance of the formation of the Union on a fundamental level. The states can, at their leisure, convene an Article 5 convention and do away with the Supreme Court if they so wish. The states have the power and always have.

What do you want to bet the Supreme Court would rule such an amendment "unconstitutional?"

I"m sure they would try. Ultimately courts only have the power we give to them. Eventually states are going to start realizing they don't have to abide by every edict of the Supreme Court.

 

[Skylar]

How about some in the South themselves?

Here's a goodun' for ya. Ten years before the war, 1850 - 51, when South Carolina was flouting around with secession and held their Convention - but couldn't get the other states to join them --

Lookie here, Mississippi held a Convention too, and what did they say?

"Resolved, further, 4th, That, in the opinion of this Convention, the asserted right of secession from the Union, on the part of a State or States, is utterly unsanctioned by the Federal Constitution, which was framed to establish, and not destroy, the Union of the States; and that no secession can, in fact, take place, without a subversion of the Union established, and which will not virtually amount, in its effects and consequences, to a civil revolution."

- 1851 Mississippi Secession Convention

Source: the rebellion record a diary of american events with documents narratives ... - frank moore - Google Books

The Congressional Globe Volume 24 Part 1 Thirty-Second Congress First Session Page 35 UNT Digital Library

Ten years earlier they were saying secession was Unconstitutional. Howzabout that?

So, they changed their minds.

Why is that important?

Why is it important?

It seems the Statesmen of the south there in 1851 understood secession was not sanctioned by the Constitution.

When threatened with the map, and the numbers that showed they would be losing the power they held for most of the entire history of the country, and the potential loss of their enormous wealth in human bondage a decade later, they...yeah, changed their minds.

A Convention cannot place restrictions on the actions of a State in the future.

How would you respond if in a debate about an issue, I started citing the current Republican Congress, and claiming that some future Democratic Congress would not have the right to "change it's mind"?

Rhetorical question: You would ridicule me mercilessly.

And you would be right to do so.

See where I am going with this?

No one "placed restrictions on them."

It was how they read the Constitution -- at that time --

As I said -- When threatened with the map of the expanding country, and the numbers that showed they would be losing the power they held for most of the entire history of the country, and the potential loss of their enormous wealth in human bondage a decade later, they...yeah, changed their minds.

It came down to *shit* we're gonna lose our slaves and our literal lifeblood!

Odd, prior to Gettysburg, Lincoln maintained that he was NOT out to eliminate slavery.

Are you implying that he was lying?

Lincoln's goal was to preserve the Union. If he could have done so without abolishing slavery, he'd have done it in a second.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Perpetual...

Where is that in the Constitution?

It's found right at the end of a Spencer rifle.

So you feel that it's in the second amendment?

LOL!

Adorable... I never seem to get my fill of watching Leftist try to think.

The Constitution gives the government the right to put down armed rebellion.

That right doesn't extend to states that are no longer part of the United States.

 

[Correll]

Perpetual...

Where is that in the Constitution?

It's found right at the end of a Spencer rifle.

And again the Might Makes Right argument.

THe last lib I called on it admitted that he didn't really believe it.

Do you?

Do you deny the constitutional right of the government to defend the nation against domestic enemies?

It's found right at the end of a Spencer rifle.[/QUOTE]


And again the Might Makes Right argument.

THe last lib I called on it admitted that he didn't really believe it.

Do you?[/QUOTE]

Do you deny the constitutional right of our government to defend the people against an armed rebellion?[/QUOTE]


You stated that that Right was found at the end of a Spencer Rifle, not the Constitution.

THat's Might Makes Right.

Is that what you believe?

 

[Skylar]

And when folks look at the constitution 'with their own eyes', they find absolutely no mention of secession whatsoever. Not the slightest peep.

So the constitution says absolutely nothing about secession, and the "Father of the Constitution" says no such right exists. With the States that tried to reserve the right to secede pulling such amendments, as the would not have been ratification of the Constitution.

You've given us exactly jack shit to back your claims with. You have absolutely nothing affirming your argument. Nothing in the constitution says what you do. And we have excellent sources from the era of the founding that demmonstrate that the issue was discussed, debated, and your claims refuted.

I agree, there is no mention of secession in the Constitution. Thank you for admitting that.

"Admitting' that? I've been the one telling you that. Your argument has so utterly imploded that you're trying to adopt my argument as you own.

And well you should. The evidence overwhelmingly supports my position.

The question, IMO, was open to reasonable disagreement.

Ignoring the history of the ratification of the constitution, the debates on this very issue, and the explicit and repeated rejection of the idea by the 'father of the constitution' isn't what I'd call 'reasonable'.

Reasonable would be following the preponderance of the evidence. And it lines up overwhelmingly on one side of the issue. As even southerners of the era of ratification admitted 'The Union of the States: the Majority must govern; secession is treason."

And this from a leading leading Virginian judge Spencer Roane, and leader of State's rights in the State.

Even the USSC recognized that the status of the State as sovereign changed once they joined under the constitution, as articulated in Gibbon v. Ogden in 1824.

I've provided overwhelming, overlapping, and among the most widely respected sources there are on the matter. You've provided nothing to refute any of it.

The Supreme Court derives its power from the Constitution. The Constitution derives its power from the states. It's more than unseemly to suggest the Supreme Court can weigh in on whether or not states can secede.

Yet they did.

Meet Texas v White.

Oh, and you may notice the words Perpetual in their ruling there.

"Even floating that argument betrays an ignorance of the formation of the Union on a fundamental level. "

Are you insane? The Constitution grants the Supreme Court the power.

"The states can, at their leisure, convene an Article 5 convention and do away with the Supreme Court if they so wish. The states have the power and always have."

They can. Gedditup, boy, gedditup. What are you waiting fer?

And therein rests the problem with a system built upon honor and reason... as the dishonorable and unreasonable will eventually come to tear it down.

But unreasonable and dishonorable according to who? Remember, you're not a rational arbiter of either. As you insist anyone who doesn't accept your Appeals to Authority fallacies are the 'personification of evil'.

Rendering your judgment little more than self contradictory gibberish.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Do you deny the constitutional right of our government to defend the people against an armed rebellion?

The Constitution does not give rights to anyone... not even the government. The Constitution merely enumerates powers advanced to the Federal Government.

And it is under the terms of that limited power that the people consent to be governed.

Of course, if you had any kinship with American principle... you'd have known that.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

So, they changed their minds.

Why is that important?

Why is it important?

It seems the Statesmen of the south there in 1851 understood secession was not sanctioned by the Constitution.

When threatened with the map, and the numbers that showed they would be losing the power they held for most of the entire history of the country, and the potential loss of their enormous wealth in human bondage a decade later, they...yeah, changed their minds.

A Convention cannot place restrictions on the actions of a State in the future.

How would you respond if in a debate about an issue, I started citing the current Republican Congress, and claiming that some future Democratic Congress would not have the right to "change it's mind"?

Rhetorical question: You would ridicule me mercilessly.

And you would be right to do so.

See where I am going with this?

No one "placed restrictions on them."

It was how they read the Constitution -- at that time --

As I said -- When threatened with the map of the expanding country, and the numbers that showed they would be losing the power they held for most of the entire history of the country, and the potential loss of their enormous wealth in human bondage a decade later, they...yeah, changed their minds.

It came down to *shit* we're gonna lose our slaves and our literal lifeblood!

Odd, prior to Gettysburg, Lincoln maintained that he was NOT out to eliminate slavery.

Are you implying that he was lying?

Lincoln's goal was to preserve the Union. If he could have done so without abolishing slavery, he'd have done it in a second.

Lincoln's goal was war at all costs. No diplomatic solutions were considered, the peace negotiations proposed by southern states were ignored, and he drew up a force of 75,000 soldiers and set them on an invasion course. Nothing about Lincoln indicated he tried to avoid war, quite the opposite. He earned the bullet that drilled into his brain 600,000 times over and now he's in hell where he belongs.

 

[Correll]

So, they changed their minds.

Why is that important?

Why is it important?

It seems the Statesmen of the south there in 1851 understood secession was not sanctioned by the Constitution.

When threatened with the map, and the numbers that showed they would be losing the power they held for most of the entire history of the country, and the potential loss of their enormous wealth in human bondage a decade later, they...yeah, changed their minds.

A Convention cannot place restrictions on the actions of a State in the future.

How would you respond if in a debate about an issue, I started citing the current Republican Congress, and claiming that some future Democratic Congress would not have the right to "change it's mind"?

Rhetorical question: You would ridicule me mercilessly.

And you would be right to do so.

See where I am going with this?

No one "placed restrictions on them."

It was how they read the Constitution -- at that time --

As I said -- When threatened with the map of the expanding country, and the numbers that showed they would be losing the power they held for most of the entire history of the country, and the potential loss of their enormous wealth in human bondage a decade later, they...yeah, changed their minds.

It came down to *shit* we're gonna lose our slaves and our literal lifeblood!

Odd, prior to Gettysburg, Lincoln maintained that he was NOT out to eliminate slavery.

Are you implying that he was lying?

Lincoln's goal was to preserve the Union. If he could have done so without abolishing slavery, he'd have done it in a second.

How did abolishing slavery help him preserve the Union?