PC Fascists To Remove Lee and Jackson from War College Memorials

Even the Supreme Court Justice who wrote the Dred Scott Decision -- the one that stated blacks, both slave and free, were not citizens - and the one the CSA so loved, and used as a legal cudgel to justify going to war over, said secession was not Constitutional (that would be the same decision that took away States' Rights).

Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney stated:

"The South contends that a state has a constitutional right to secede from the Union formed with her sister states. In this I submit the South errs. No power or right is constitutional but what can be exercised in a form or mode provided in the constitution for its exercise. Secession is therefore not constitutional, but revolutionary; and is only morally competent, like war, upon failure of justice."

Taney's views as to the constitutionality of secession were expressed in an untitled, eight-page memorandum in his own handwriting that was donated to the Library of Congress in 1929. This memorandum has been labeled (apparently by a library archivist) "Fragment of a Manuscript Relating to Slavery in the United States," RBTP-LC. Although the memorandum is undated, internal evidence indicates that it was written between January 26 and February 1, 1861. It was Taney's practice during the war to set forth his views on controversial constitutional issues for possible use in Supreme Court opinions, if and when those issues should come before the Court. For description and discussion of this memorandum, see Fehrenbacher, Dred Scott Case, 554-555, 7IIn.5.


Source: Lincoln & The Court, by Brian McGinty.
 
There are no Constitutional provisions for secession. Never were

Taking up arms against your country is Treason......always has been

And does not apply to the South which left the union freely as it had joined.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says the United States is a loose federation of states that can come and go as they wish

If it were so, they would have provided a Constitutional means for states to join and leave the country

Real Americans understand that
 
upside down flag boi's avie is as butt hurt & preposterous as a couple others here on the board who sport similar FAIL avies. Flying the flag upside down was meant for more important reasons than todays rw'ers losing elections :thup:
 
upside down flag boi's avie is as butt hurt & preposterous as a couple others here on the board who sport similar FAIL avies. Flying the flag upside down was meant for more important reasons than todays rw'ers losing elections :thup:

America does not vote the way I do......time to declare a revolution
 
Pretty much why the South went to war -- they lost an election.

Sore losers, still.

I guess extreme oversimplification is easier for the average person, uneducated in history and cultural anthropology, to grasp..........
The seeds of the Civil War were planted with the colonization of the Americas and following a series of complex events over the following decades came to fruition with the secession of the South and the start of open warfare.
 
Even the Supreme Court Justice who wrote the Dred Scott Decision -- the one that stated blacks, both slave and free, were not citizens - and the one the CSA so loved, and used as a legal cudgel to justify going to war over, said secession was not Constitutional (that would be the same decision that took away States' Rights).

Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney stated:

"The South contends that a state has a constitutional right to secede from the Union formed with her sister states. In this I submit the South errs. No power or right is constitutional but what can be exercised in a form or mode provided in the constitution for its exercise. Secession is therefore not constitutional, but revolutionary; and is only morally competent, like war, upon failure of justice."

Taney's views as to the constitutionality of secession were expressed in an untitled, eight-page memorandum in his own handwriting that was donated to the Library of Congress in 1929. This memorandum has been labeled (apparently by a library archivist) "Fragment of a Manuscript Relating to Slavery in the United States," RBTP-LC. Although the memorandum is undated, internal evidence indicates that it was written between January 26 and February 1, 1861. It was Taney's practice during the war to set forth his views on controversial constitutional issues for possible use in Supreme Court opinions, if and when those issues should come before the Court. For description and discussion of this memorandum, see Fehrenbacher, Dred Scott Case, 554-555, 7IIn.5.


Source: Lincoln & The Court, by Brian McGinty.

Ruled after the fact and so not justly used to condemn the south for secession.
 
Pretty much why the South went to war -- they lost an election.

Sore losers, still.

Well, that is kind of simplified to the point of stupidity, but essentially true.

'Sore losers' would cover the realization that when a man can win the Presidency without getting a single elector from any Southern state and therefore that union is no longer of mutual benefit, maybe that is 'sore loser' to a moron.
 
rightwinger said:
JimBowie1958 said:
paperview said:
Even the Supreme Court Justice who wrote the Dred Scott Decision -- the one that stated blacks, both slave and free, were not citizens - and the one the CSA so loved, and used as a legal cudgel to justify going to war over, said secession was not Constitutional (that would be the same decision that took away States' Rights).

Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney stated:

"The South contends that a state has a constitutional right to secede from the Union formed with her sister states. In this I submit the South errs. No power or right is constitutional but what can be exercised in a form or mode provided in the constitution for its exercise. Secession is therefore not constitutional, but revolutionary; and is only morally competent, like war, upon failure of justice."

Taney's views as to the constitutionality of secession were expressed in an untitled, eight-page memorandum in his own handwriting that was donated to the Library of Congress in 1929. This memorandum has been labeled (apparently by a library archivist) "Fragment of a Manuscript Relating to Slavery in the United States," RBTP-LC. Although the memorandum is undated, internal evidence indicates that it was written between January 26 and February 1, 1861. It was Taney's practice during the war to set forth his views on controversial constitutional issues for possible use in Supreme Court opinions, if and when those issues should come before the Court. For description and discussion of this memorandum, see Fehrenbacher, Dred Scott Case, 554-555, 7IIn.5.

Source: Lincoln & The Court, by Brian McGinty.
Ruled after the fact and so not justly used to condemn the south for secession.
Dred Scott was BEFORE the secession

Lol, boundless stupidity, as always.
 
There are no Constitutional provisions for secession. Never were

Taking up arms against your country is Treason......always has been

And does not apply to the South which left the union freely as it had joined.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says the United States is a loose federation of states that can come and go as they wish

If it were so, they would have provided a Constitutional means for states to join and leave the country

Real Americans understand that

They did and Jefferson said it well....
 
Pretty much why the South went to war -- they lost an election.

Sore losers, still.

I guess extreme oversimplification is easier for the average person, uneducated in history and cultural anthropology, to grasp..........
The seeds of the Civil War were planted with the colonization of the Americas and following a series of complex events over the following decades came to fruition with the secession of the South and the start of open warfare.
The seeds which started with a Southern aristocracy that refused to join the Union initially unless their precious peculiar institution was allowed to thrive.

Which let to compromises like granting 3/5ths population count to property, as a horse is property, and that was not represented.

Which led to Southern domination in Congress, by virtue of counting that which is property and could not vote - to nearly 4 million of the 9 million Southerners, which, until that time of the 1860 election (where they did not even allow Lincoln on the ballot in those Southern states) -- they had maintained enough power to satisfy.

Then! Lincoln's election/ Boom. They lost an election. See ya's -- We're taking our marbles and going home now.
 
And does not apply to the South which left the union freely as it had joined.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says the United States is a loose federation of states that can come and go as they wish

If it were so, they would have provided a Constitutional means for states to join and leave the country

Real Americans understand that

They did and Jefferson said it well....

What Jefferson believed in political theory he did not practice while president.
 
Pretty much why the South went to war -- they lost an election.

Sore losers, still.

Look at the secessionist that raised their ugly heads when Oblama was elected.

Who?

got a link jack ass?

Short memory? Or selective memory?


Obama’s Re-Election Inspires Southern Secessionists

http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/14/obamas-re-election-inspires-southern-secessionists/
 
Last edited:
Pretty much why the South went to war -- they lost an election.

Sore losers, still.

I guess extreme oversimplification is easier for the average person, uneducated in history and cultural anthropology, to grasp..........
The seeds of the Civil War were planted with the colonization of the Americas and following a series of complex events over the following decades came to fruition with the secession of the South and the start of open warfare.
The seeds which started with a Southern aristocracy that refused to join the Union initially unless their precious peculiar institution was allowed to thrive.

Which let to compromises like granting 3/5ths population count to property, as a horse is property, and that was not represented.

Which led to Southern domination in Congress, by virtue of counting that which is property and could not vote - to nearly 4 million of the 9 million Southerners, which, until that time of the 1860 election (where they did not even allow Lincoln on the ballot in those Southern states) -- they had maintained enough power to satisfy.

Then! Lincoln's election/ Boom. They lost an election. See ya's -- We're taking our marbles and going home now.

Bullshit. The NORTH wanted blacks to not be represented and argued blacks shouldn't be, and it was the SOUTH that argued for full representation of blacks, you liar.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top