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

[JimH52]

What is wrong with the GOP wanting some free labor?

 

[Skylar]

No, I asked a question.

Truth is subjective,

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

That's all I need to know about you. Why bother debating this issue if it's entirely subjective?

it's why we have one of the three branches of government to interpret the law. Because one body needs to or we are all living under different truths and in the end that creates chaos. So, we have the court system to decide what is fair under the law, there really isn't a better system in place and no, you're not going to be happy 100% of the time, tough shit, it's called real life.

No that's not the reason we have three branches of government. The real reason is that men can never be trusted to rule over other men, whether they are politicians, presidents or judges.

Our court system is a travesty. What it dispenses couldn't even remotely be called "justice."

Says you, citing you. And you ignore your own sources if they don't ape what you want to believe. Rendering your judgment uselessly inconsistent.

You ignored your own source Madison on secession. You ignored the USSC. And the constitution makes no mention of it. It definitely mentioned rebellions and invasions. Placing the Union's putting down of a rebellion far above whatever you imagine for the constitution.

You citing yourself may have some meaning in your own head. It means jack shit to anyone else. As legally speaking, you're nobody. Where as Madison, the Constitution and the USSC are all immediately relevant to the law. Any one of which trumps you.

Once again you admit the truth: The Constitution doesn't mention secession.

Admit it? Its my point, Brip. There's no mention of secession in the Constitution while there is definitely mention of rebellions and invasions. The authority you've imagined doesn't exist. While the basis of the Union's defense of its own forts and the suppression of rebellions within its own territory are thoroughly established in the constitution.

So you ignore the constitution.

You claim authority that the constitution never so much as mentions. You've literally pulled the right to secession sideways out of your ass. And there's nothing backing it save you imagining it must be so.

Contradicting you is the constitution which has nothing you made up, Madison who explicitly contradicts you insisting the constitution is adopted in toto and forever, and the USSC explicitly contradicting you. With the USSC recognizing that the sovereign status of the states was changed upon joining under the constitution 30 years BEFORE the civil war. And the USSC recognizing that no right to secede AFTER the civil war.

And you ignore it all, imagining that you must be right. Um.....you're nobody. And no law is based on your imagination.

Do you have anything but you citing yourself? Or is it just lies like your claims about 'Madison supporting secession' or your blithering idiocy about the NY ratification document retaining the right to secede?

If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have to keep lying to support it.

Are you just terminally stupid? The Constitution doesn't mention secession because it has no authority over secession.

Says you citing yourself. Which is meaningless, as you're nobody. The constitution makes no mention whatsoever of the power to secede. With James Madison making it ridiculously clear that no such power existed, that the constitution was adopted 'in toto and forever'.

Given your personal opinion on one side and the Father of the Constitution on the other....I'm gonna go with Madison. As would any rational person. As you don't know what you're talking about.

The Constitution is a product of power, the original powers that belong to the states that ratified it. The original power of the states to voluntarily join the union also allows them to extricate themselves from the union.

Again, says you. The USSC contradicts you, recognizing that the States status as individual sovereigns changed when they joined together under the constitution. You insist it didn't.

So I have your personal opinion backed by jack shit on one hand. And an authoritative ruling the USSC that came a generation BEFORE the civil war that says differently. But you expect me to ignore the USSC and believe you?

How did you put it? Ah yes.

"Are you just terminally stupid?"

 

[Steinlight]

If you people oppose secession, than why don't you rejoin the United Kingdom?

 

[Skylar]

It's certainly an interesting viewpoint that people must "keep their word" by remaining in a contract when the other party to that contract isn't keeping his. It's WRONG, but it's interesting.

He sounds just like the abusive husband who said he had to kill his wife because she said she was leaving.

No I sound like a murderer? Hey eat me trailer trash.

Yes you do sound like a murderer. You certainly have been gloating about the murder of 850,000 people.

I am not gloating special needs I am educating you on how many deaths the democrat confederates caused when they started the civil war.

It wasn't a civil war, nor was it a "war between the states".

Says you. Remember, you typing a claim doesn't actually make it so. You keep working under the assumption that anything you choose to believe must be immutable fact. When in reality, its just your personal opinion, citing yourself.

It's an important point because it highlights your ignorance of history and the nature of the conflict.

Or more accurately it highlights your personal opinion as nothing more than what you choose to believe. And rejects you citing yourself as defining the 'nature of the conflict'.

I hate to break this to you but you typing your opinion isn't actually evidence.

A civil war is when two factions contend for the control of a single government. Eleven seceding states were not trying to seize control of the government of the United States.

There is no such power to do so. With no mention whatsoever of secession in the Constitution. Any language preserving the right to secede was stripped from ratification documents of the States. The Supreme Court found that the status of the States as individual sovereigns changed when they joined under the constitution.

Remember, the right to secede was an Anti-Federalist argument. And the Anti-Federalists LOST. The Federalists rejected the idea of secession. The Federalists WON. It was the Federalists that overwhelmingly wrote the constitution, with the chief Federalist, James Madison, writing the document. And James Madison rejected the idea of secession explicitly stating that the Constitution was adopted 'in toto and forever'.

And backing your case for secession? You imagining it must be so. Citing yourself. Backed by jack shit as the constitution makes no mention of it.

So it was a rebellion. And the constitution most definitely mentions those.

 

[Steinlight]

He sounds just like the abusive husband who said he had to kill his wife because she said she was leaving.

No I sound like a murderer? Hey eat me trailer trash.

Yes you do sound like a murderer. You certainly have been gloating about the murder of 850,000 people.

I am not gloating special needs I am educating you on how many deaths the democrat confederates caused when they started the civil war.

It wasn't a civil war, nor was it a "war between the states".

Says you. Remember, you typing a claim doesn't actually make it so. You keep working under the assumption that anything you choose to believe must be immutable fact. When in reality, its just your personal opinion, citing yourself.

It's an important point because it highlights your ignorance of history and the nature of the conflict.

Or more accurately it highlights your personal opinion as nothing more than what you choose to believe. And rejects you citing yourself as defining the 'nature of the conflict'.

I hate to break this to you but you typing your opinion isn't actually evidence.

A civil war is when two factions contend for the control of a single government. Eleven seceding states were not trying to seize control of the government of the United States.

There is no such power to do so. With no mention whatsoever of secession in the Constitution. Any language preserving the right to secede was stripped from ratification documents of the States. The Supreme Court found that the status of the States as individual sovereigns changed when they joined under the constitution.

Remember, the right to secede was an Anti-Federalist argument. And the Anti-Federalists LOST. It was the Federalists that overwhelmingly wrote the constitution, with the chief Federalist, James Madison, writing the document. And James Madison explicitly rejected the idea of secession explicitly stating that the Constitution was adopted 'in toto and forever'.

And backing your case for secession? You imagining it must be so. Citing yourself. Backed by jack shit as the constitution makes no mention of it.

So it was a rebellion. And the constitution most definitely mentions those.

So what if secession is illegal? The founding fathers illegally seceded from Great Britain.

 

[danielpalos]

Some honest Injeun contingent Elders claimed they got "baited and switched" from the US under the Articles to our more federal form, with only Informed Consent after the fact than through voluntary signatories.

 

[Skylar]

No I sound like a murderer? Hey eat me trailer trash.

Yes you do sound like a murderer. You certainly have been gloating about the murder of 850,000 people.

I am not gloating special needs I am educating you on how many deaths the democrat confederates caused when they started the civil war.

It wasn't a civil war, nor was it a "war between the states".

Says you. Remember, you typing a claim doesn't actually make it so. You keep working under the assumption that anything you choose to believe must be immutable fact. When in reality, its just your personal opinion, citing yourself.

It's an important point because it highlights your ignorance of history and the nature of the conflict.

Or more accurately it highlights your personal opinion as nothing more than what you choose to believe. And rejects you citing yourself as defining the 'nature of the conflict'.

I hate to break this to you but you typing your opinion isn't actually evidence.

A civil war is when two factions contend for the control of a single government. Eleven seceding states were not trying to seize control of the government of the United States.

There is no such power to do so. With no mention whatsoever of secession in the Constitution. Any language preserving the right to secede was stripped from ratification documents of the States. The Supreme Court found that the status of the States as individual sovereigns changed when they joined under the constitution.

Remember, the right to secede was an Anti-Federalist argument. And the Anti-Federalists LOST. It was the Federalists that overwhelmingly wrote the constitution, with the chief Federalist, James Madison, writing the document. And James Madison explicitly rejected the idea of secession explicitly stating that the Constitution was adopted 'in toto and forever'.

And backing your case for secession? You imagining it must be so. Citing yourself. Backed by jack shit as the constitution makes no mention of it.

So it was a rebellion. And the constitution most definitely mentions those.

So what if secession is illegal? The founding fathers illegally seceded from Great Britain.

Per the laws of Britian, of course they did. Though all legal issues were settled with the Treaty of Paris in 1783.

 

[danielpalos]

What if Britain had insisted we produce to "needs" in favor of tax preference and autonomy to accomplish that Commercial venture without, undue Burden.

 

[there4eyeM]

Serious questions will be responded to.

 

[Steinlight]

Yes you do sound like a murderer. You certainly have been gloating about the murder of 850,000 people.

I am not gloating special needs I am educating you on how many deaths the democrat confederates caused when they started the civil war.

It wasn't a civil war, nor was it a "war between the states".

Says you. Remember, you typing a claim doesn't actually make it so. You keep working under the assumption that anything you choose to believe must be immutable fact. When in reality, its just your personal opinion, citing yourself.

It's an important point because it highlights your ignorance of history and the nature of the conflict.

Or more accurately it highlights your personal opinion as nothing more than what you choose to believe. And rejects you citing yourself as defining the 'nature of the conflict'.

I hate to break this to you but you typing your opinion isn't actually evidence.

A civil war is when two factions contend for the control of a single government. Eleven seceding states were not trying to seize control of the government of the United States.

There is no such power to do so. With no mention whatsoever of secession in the Constitution. Any language preserving the right to secede was stripped from ratification documents of the States. The Supreme Court found that the status of the States as individual sovereigns changed when they joined under the constitution.

Remember, the right to secede was an Anti-Federalist argument. And the Anti-Federalists LOST. It was the Federalists that overwhelmingly wrote the constitution, with the chief Federalist, James Madison, writing the document. And James Madison explicitly rejected the idea of secession explicitly stating that the Constitution was adopted 'in toto and forever'.

And backing your case for secession? You imagining it must be so. Citing yourself. Backed by jack shit as the constitution makes no mention of it.

So it was a rebellion. And the constitution most definitely mentions those.

So what if secession is illegal? The founding fathers illegally seceded from Great Britain.

Per the laws of Britian, of course they did. Though all legal issues were settled with the Treaty of Paris in 1783.

So then why does it matter if it's illegal? That is a moot point.

 

[Skylar]

I am not gloating special needs I am educating you on how many deaths the democrat confederates caused when they started the civil war.

It wasn't a civil war, nor was it a "war between the states".

Says you. Remember, you typing a claim doesn't actually make it so. You keep working under the assumption that anything you choose to believe must be immutable fact. When in reality, its just your personal opinion, citing yourself.

It's an important point because it highlights your ignorance of history and the nature of the conflict.

Or more accurately it highlights your personal opinion as nothing more than what you choose to believe. And rejects you citing yourself as defining the 'nature of the conflict'.

I hate to break this to you but you typing your opinion isn't actually evidence.

A civil war is when two factions contend for the control of a single government. Eleven seceding states were not trying to seize control of the government of the United States.

There is no such power to do so. With no mention whatsoever of secession in the Constitution. Any language preserving the right to secede was stripped from ratification documents of the States. The Supreme Court found that the status of the States as individual sovereigns changed when they joined under the constitution.

Remember, the right to secede was an Anti-Federalist argument. And the Anti-Federalists LOST. It was the Federalists that overwhelmingly wrote the constitution, with the chief Federalist, James Madison, writing the document. And James Madison explicitly rejected the idea of secession explicitly stating that the Constitution was adopted 'in toto and forever'.

And backing your case for secession? You imagining it must be so. Citing yourself. Backed by jack shit as the constitution makes no mention of it.

So it was a rebellion. And the constitution most definitely mentions those.

So what if secession is illegal? The founding fathers illegally seceded from Great Britain.

Per the laws of Britian, of course they did. Though all legal issues were settled with the Treaty of Paris in 1783.

So then why does it matter if it's illegal? That is a moot point.

If its illegal, then you can't use a constitutional or legal basis as your premise for secession. Secession wasn't a legal authority that the States possessed. Meaning that the Civil War wasn't a battle between nations. But within a nation. With the Union putting down a rebellion.

Which it has every authority to do.

 

[Skylar]

What if Britain had insisted we produce to "needs" in favor of tax preference and autonomy to accomplish that Commercial venture without, undue Burden.

You'll need to elaborate, as the terms you've chosen are uselessly vague.

What do you mean by 'produce to needs'? And commercial venture is 'that' commercial venture? What tax preferences were you referring to?

 

[Steinlight]

It wasn't a civil war, nor was it a "war between the states".

Says you. Remember, you typing a claim doesn't actually make it so. You keep working under the assumption that anything you choose to believe must be immutable fact. When in reality, its just your personal opinion, citing yourself.

It's an important point because it highlights your ignorance of history and the nature of the conflict.

Or more accurately it highlights your personal opinion as nothing more than what you choose to believe. And rejects you citing yourself as defining the 'nature of the conflict'.

I hate to break this to you but you typing your opinion isn't actually evidence.

A civil war is when two factions contend for the control of a single government. Eleven seceding states were not trying to seize control of the government of the United States.

There is no such power to do so. With no mention whatsoever of secession in the Constitution. Any language preserving the right to secede was stripped from ratification documents of the States. The Supreme Court found that the status of the States as individual sovereigns changed when they joined under the constitution.

Remember, the right to secede was an Anti-Federalist argument. And the Anti-Federalists LOST. It was the Federalists that overwhelmingly wrote the constitution, with the chief Federalist, James Madison, writing the document. And James Madison explicitly rejected the idea of secession explicitly stating that the Constitution was adopted 'in toto and forever'.

And backing your case for secession? You imagining it must be so. Citing yourself. Backed by jack shit as the constitution makes no mention of it.

So it was a rebellion. And the constitution most definitely mentions those.

So what if secession is illegal? The founding fathers illegally seceded from Great Britain.

Per the laws of Britian, of course they did. Though all legal issues were settled with the Treaty of Paris in 1783.

So then why does it matter if it's illegal? That is a moot point.

If its illegal, then you can't use a constitutional or legal basis as your premise for secession. Secession wasn't a legal authority that the States possessed. Meaning that the Civil War wasn't a battle between nations. But within a nation. With the Union putting down a rebellion.

Which it has every authority to do.

So what? The British had the authority to put down the American Revolution. So do you support them because what the Americans did was illegal and the British had the legal authority to put it down?

 

[Skylar]

Says you. Remember, you typing a claim doesn't actually make it so. You keep working under the assumption that anything you choose to believe must be immutable fact. When in reality, its just your personal opinion, citing yourself.

Or more accurately it highlights your personal opinion as nothing more than what you choose to believe. And rejects you citing yourself as defining the 'nature of the conflict'.

I hate to break this to you but you typing your opinion isn't actually evidence.

There is no such power to do so. With no mention whatsoever of secession in the Constitution. Any language preserving the right to secede was stripped from ratification documents of the States. The Supreme Court found that the status of the States as individual sovereigns changed when they joined under the constitution.

Remember, the right to secede was an Anti-Federalist argument. And the Anti-Federalists LOST. It was the Federalists that overwhelmingly wrote the constitution, with the chief Federalist, James Madison, writing the document. And James Madison explicitly rejected the idea of secession explicitly stating that the Constitution was adopted 'in toto and forever'.

And backing your case for secession? You imagining it must be so. Citing yourself. Backed by jack shit as the constitution makes no mention of it.

So it was a rebellion. And the constitution most definitely mentions those.

So what if secession is illegal? The founding fathers illegally seceded from Great Britain.

Per the laws of Britian, of course they did. Though all legal issues were settled with the Treaty of Paris in 1783.

So then why does it matter if it's illegal? That is a moot point.

If its illegal, then you can't use a constitutional or legal basis as your premise for secession. Secession wasn't a legal authority that the States possessed. Meaning that the Civil War wasn't a battle between nations. But within a nation. With the Union putting down a rebellion.

Which it has every authority to do.

So what, the British had the authority to put down the American Revolution. So do you support them because what the Americans did was illegal and the British had the legal authority to put it down?

So the folks I'm talking to insist that the States had the legal authority to secede and that they could withdrawn from the constitution unilaterally and at will. I've argued they can't. Not under the law. Not under the constitution. And I have lots and lots of legal evidence to prove it.

 

[Steinlight]

So what if secession is illegal? The founding fathers illegally seceded from Great Britain.

Per the laws of Britian, of course they did. Though all legal issues were settled with the Treaty of Paris in 1783.

So then why does it matter if it's illegal? That is a moot point.

If its illegal, then you can't use a constitutional or legal basis as your premise for secession. Secession wasn't a legal authority that the States possessed. Meaning that the Civil War wasn't a battle between nations. But within a nation. With the Union putting down a rebellion.

Which it has every authority to do.

So what, the British had the authority to put down the American Revolution. So do you support them because what the Americans did was illegal and the British had the legal authority to put it down?

So the folks I'm talking to insist that the States had the legal authority to secede and that they could withdrawn from the constitution unilaterally and at will. I've argued they can't. Not under the law. Not under the constitution. And I have lots and lots of legal evidence to prove it.

So what? The whole point of secession is not recognizing the legal authority of those you secede from. It us just a ridiculous point. If you oppose the south being able to secede, why don't you rejoin Great Britain?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Since succession is not addressed by the constitution, then it should be up to individual states to decide.

And, yes I know that the USSC has ruled differently since the civil war. But that's proof that sometimes the Supreme Court makes stuff up that is not in the constitution.

Also, if a state decides to succeed, why should they care what the Supreme Court thinks anymore. That state is declaring itself free from the U.S. and no longer bound by its laws or court rulings.

The Term NOT delegated to the US dummy that means you would still have to be part of the US for the constitutional protections you are demanding....You can not have you cake and eat it to

And they WERE part of the US . . . at the time they issued their declaration of secession. Otherwise, there'd have been nothing for them to secede FROM.

This argument is like saying that in order to get divorced, you have to be in a marriage . . . but the second you get divorced, you're not married anymore, and so you don't qualify for the divorce.

Nice Catch-22, but not gonna work.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The prejudice , assumptions and childish name calling of some posters is so glaring that even they should see it. For example, nowhere has this poster extolled the virtues of Lincoln nor stated that secession was clearly illegal (or legal). Statements have been made and questions posed trying to put the discussion in perspective. Most responding posters have interpreted these in that way.
I will state here that the crime of slavery is so heinous that little can be imagined to exceed it. Whatever it took to end it, and whoever suffered what as a result of having practiced it, is like the rapist; whatever happens to him he brought upon himself.
Just as in the world there are many 'evils' and 'causes' to go to war such as religion, oil, simple power, these would never convince me to 'take up arms'. But if there were a serious battle to free my sisters worldwide, once and for all from the awful oppression they have suffered for centuries, millennia, you might have a soldier here.

In other words, you don't care what the law or the Constitution says.

Got it.

Tell us why anyone should waste his time discussing the issue with you?

You apparently dont care what the constitution says. There is no right to secession in the constitution.

I wasn't aware the Constitution outlined and and granted rights. Last time I checked, it's all about granting limited powers to government, and setting boundaries on them.

Okay then where is the phrase in the constitution that the US government has to let a state secede?

While I appreciate your attempt at word parsing, you're still talking about the Constitution granting specific rights to states and people, rather than what it actually does, which is to grant specific powers to the federal government. Under those circumstances, the correct observation is that the federal government must allow secession BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GRANT IT THE POWER TO PREVENT IT.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You apparently dont care what the constitution says. There is no right to secession in the constitution.

The Constitution doesn't mention secession, so how can anyone claim it isn't permitted? The theory that everything not expressly permitted is denied is the logic of morons.

You can say it isn't permitted because it is called rebellion and that is treason and yes before you spout out more stupidity our founding fathers were traitors to the crown. .

It's called secession, and it isn't treason. Lincoln is the one who committed treason by making war on states of the union.

The Major difference being the founders won their rebellion. They won it because they were worthy. Not just strength won the revolutionary war but ideals of liberty and freedom because it garnered the Frenches help which without them we wouldn't have a country today. The confederates didn't have that morel ground to stand on. You cant scream you are for freedom and then rebel to expand slave economics. The founders one great weakness was allowing the slavery to exist after we were founded. Lincoln fixed that with the cray baby help of the south. They started a war and gave him the opportunity to emancipate them......

So winning makes it right? It's hard to believe that an adult is stupid and unscrupulous to utter such nonsense. The Founders were no more "worth" than the leaders of the Confederacy. Their ideals were virtually identical. The French helped because England was Frances enemy. That doesn't provide the slightest sliver of "moral ground."

Bottom line: You're an ignominious weasel.

So by that logic, if the South HAD won, Thanatos would be in here today telling us how legal and virtuous secession is, based simply on the fact that it worked.

The south wouldn't have won we all would have lost..... But as we see they lost.

I expect better of you than this sort of half-assed dodging. Address the point directly, please.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So what if secession is illegal? The founding fathers illegally seceded from Great Britain.

Per the laws of Britian, of course they did. Though all legal issues were settled with the Treaty of Paris in 1783.

So then why does it matter if it's illegal? That is a moot point.

If its illegal, then you can't use a constitutional or legal basis as your premise for secession. Secession wasn't a legal authority that the States possessed. Meaning that the Civil War wasn't a battle between nations. But within a nation. With the Union putting down a rebellion.

Which it has every authority to do.

So what, the British had the authority to put down the American Revolution. So do you support them because what the Americans did was illegal and the British had the legal authority to put it down?

So the folks I'm talking to insist that the States had the legal authority to secede and that they could withdrawn from the constitution unilaterally and at will. I've argued they can't. Not under the law. Not under the constitution. And I have lots and lots of legal evidence to prove it.

Amazingly enough, telling us you have "lots and lots of evidence" does not in itself constitute evidence. Your telling us that something is true barely constitutes evidence that you have a computer with a keyboard, from my viewpoint.

 

[JoeMoma]

So what if secession is illegal? The founding fathers illegally seceded from Great Britain.

Per the laws of Britian, of course they did. Though all legal issues were settled with the Treaty of Paris in 1783.

So then why does it matter if it's illegal? That is a moot point.

If its illegal, then you can't use a constitutional or legal basis as your premise for secession. Secession wasn't a legal authority that the States possessed. Meaning that the Civil War wasn't a battle between nations. But within a nation. With the Union putting down a rebellion.

Which it has every authority to do.

So what, the British had the authority to put down the American Revolution. So do you support them because what the Americans did was illegal and the British had the legal authority to put it down?

So the folks I'm talking to insist that the States had the legal authority to secede and that they could withdrawn from the constitution unilaterally and at will. I've argued they can't. Not under the law. Not under the constitution. And I have lots and lots of legal evidence to prove it.

The Supreme Court did rule after the war that a state does not have the right to succeed. My opinion is that the ruling was driven by politics rather than a correct interpretation of the constitution. Of course it's the ruling of the court that carries weight. My little humble opinion has no power of law.

The court was not about to overturn the union's victory over the south by a constitutional rulling, the wording of the constitution be damned!