The Flag of Treason

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

My bad. It was in the constitution. I knew I had read it long ago.

Article IV Section 3

Section 3.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Still not seeing it. Nothing in there forbids States from seceding.

"...or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

If you want to secede you have to get off US property.

That applies to territories, not States. Otherwise, there would be no need for this language:
"nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

No it applies to property which is right there n the definition. Once you become part of the US you are now US property regardless of if its a state or territory.

"...or other property belonging to the United States;"

So, what was the property of the United States?

Congress...needful rules.....respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.

All the land within its scope of ownership at that time.

Which was?

All the land mass it owned including the states that attempted to seceed and lost.

WRONG.

Can you elaborate on why you think thats wrong?

Did the states own any property?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

My bad. It was in the constitution. I knew I had read it long ago.

Article IV Section 3

Section 3.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Still not seeing it. Nothing in there forbids States from seceding.

"...or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

If you want to secede you have to get off US property.

That applies to territories, not States. Otherwise, there would be no need for this language:
"nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

No it applies to property which is right there n the definition. Once you become part of the US you are now US property regardless of if its a state or territory.

"...or other property belonging to the United States;"

So, what was the property of the United States?

Congress...needful rules.....respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.

All the land within its scope of ownership at that time.

Which was?

All the land mass it owned including the states that attempted to seceed and lost.

WRONG.

I see you IGNORING those arguing that the US started the war yet it clearly states in the Constitution that Federal land remains Federal land no matter what an individual State does, I see you actually ignore that while supporting those that make the claim the US started the war.

 

[bripat9643]

My bad. It was in the constitution. I knew I had read it long ago.

Article IV Section 3

Section 3.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Still not seeing it. Nothing in there forbids States from seceding.

"...or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

If you want to secede you have to get off US property.

That applies to territories, not States. Otherwise, there would be no need for this language:
"nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

No it applies to property which is right there n the definition. Once you become part of the US you are now US property regardless of if its a state or territory.

"...or other property belonging to the United States;"

So, what was the property of the United States?

Congress...needful rules.....respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.

All the land within its scope of ownership at that time.

Which was?

All the land mass it owned including the states that attempted to seceed and lost.

The federal government did not own the states, you fucking dumbass.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

My bad. It was a SCOTUS decision. 1812

???

What decision?

It was completely unclear until the war. It was not legally cleared up until Texas v. White.

SCOTUS decision based on New Englands flirtation with secession in 1812.

Can you give me a cite, or even a name?

Hartford Convention | Federalist Party, Secession, New England

Hartford Convention, (December 15, 1814–January 5, 1815), in U.S. history, a secret meeting in Hartford, Connecticut, of Federalist delegates from Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont who were dissatisfied with Pres. James Madison’s mercantile policies and the

www.britannica.com

A secret meeting is not a SCOTUS decision. I don't get what you are trying to show me.

The issue of whether secession was legal was still debatable all the way up to the end of the war, and legally not clarified until 1869.

Unless you have something else, there was no absolute duty to remain in the Union and nothing binding about it.

Just saying the idea came from that instance that later led to the court decision in 1869.

But, it was still legitimately unclear. Those arguing that secession was legal did so in good faith (not just trying to bullshit their way out). So, it's really hard to call those States "traitors" when their actions were not clearly forbidden and appeared to be voluntary in/voluntary out.

Call them racists. Call them losers. Call them anything under the sun. Just not "traitors" because that is bullshit

My bad. It was in the constitution. I knew I had read it long ago.

Article IV Section 3

"

New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

"

Where does that say states can't secede?

It clearly states that FEDERAL PROPERTY REMAINS FEDERAL PROPERTY NO MAR+TTER the action of the State.

So, do the states have ANY PROPERTY???

Of course it does Ascelepios is wrong that particular clause does not say the US owns the States. Now are you going to address those ignoring that South Carolina attacked the US?

 

[bripat9643]

My bad. It was a SCOTUS decision. 1812

???

What decision?

It was completely unclear until the war. It was not legally cleared up until Texas v. White.

SCOTUS decision based on New Englands flirtation with secession in 1812.

Can you give me a cite, or even a name?

Hartford Convention | Federalist Party, Secession, New England

Hartford Convention, (December 15, 1814–January 5, 1815), in U.S. history, a secret meeting in Hartford, Connecticut, of Federalist delegates from Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont who were dissatisfied with Pres. James Madison’s mercantile policies and the

www.britannica.com

A secret meeting is not a SCOTUS decision. I don't get what you are trying to show me.

The issue of whether secession was legal was still debatable all the way up to the end of the war, and legally not clarified until 1869.

Unless you have something else, there was no absolute duty to remain in the Union and nothing binding about it.

Just saying the idea came from that instance that later led to the court decision in 1869.

But, it was still legitimately unclear. Those arguing that secession was legal did so in good faith (not just trying to bullshit their way out). So, it's really hard to call those States "traitors" when their actions were not clearly forbidden and appeared to be voluntary in/voluntary out.

Call them racists. Call them losers. Call them anything under the sun. Just not "traitors" because that is bullshit

My bad. It was in the constitution. I knew I had read it long ago.

Article IV Section 3

"

New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

"

Where does that say states can't secede?

It clearly states that FEDERAL PROPERTY REMAINS FEDERAL PROPERTY NO MATTER the action of the State.

meaningless if a state secedes. It's no longer part of the union and not subject to the Constitution.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

My bad. It was in the constitution. I knew I had read it long ago.

Article IV Section 3

Section 3.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Still not seeing it. Nothing in there forbids States from seceding.

"...or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

If you want to secede you have to get off US property.

That applies to territories, not States. Otherwise, there would be no need for this language:
"nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

No it applies to property which is right there n the definition. Once you become part of the US you are now US property regardless of if its a state or territory.

"...or other property belonging to the United States;"

So, what was the property of the United States?

Congress...needful rules.....respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.

All the land within its scope of ownership at that time.

Which was?

All the land mass it owned including the states that attempted to seceed and lost.

WRONG.

I see you IGNORING those arguing that the US started the war yet it clearly states in the Constitution that Federal land remains Federal land no matter what an individual State does, I see you actually ignore that while supporting those that make the claim the US started the war.

You see it wrong.

If the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, it was the South who started the war, because the U.S. had the right to occupy it's property. AT THE SAME TIME, if the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, the States owned all the other property in their boundaries, and secession was NOT ILLEGAL!!!

SO, WHICH IS IT???

 

[RetiredGySgt]

My bad. It was a SCOTUS decision. 1812

???

What decision?

It was completely unclear until the war. It was not legally cleared up until Texas v. White.

SCOTUS decision based on New Englands flirtation with secession in 1812.

Can you give me a cite, or even a name?

Hartford Convention | Federalist Party, Secession, New England

Hartford Convention, (December 15, 1814–January 5, 1815), in U.S. history, a secret meeting in Hartford, Connecticut, of Federalist delegates from Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont who were dissatisfied with Pres. James Madison’s mercantile policies and the

www.britannica.com

A secret meeting is not a SCOTUS decision. I don't get what you are trying to show me.

The issue of whether secession was legal was still debatable all the way up to the end of the war, and legally not clarified until 1869.

Unless you have something else, there was no absolute duty to remain in the Union and nothing binding about it.

Just saying the idea came from that instance that later led to the court decision in 1869.

But, it was still legitimately unclear. Those arguing that secession was legal did so in good faith (not just trying to bullshit their way out). So, it's really hard to call those States "traitors" when their actions were not clearly forbidden and appeared to be voluntary in/voluntary out.

Call them racists. Call them losers. Call them anything under the sun. Just not "traitors" because that is bullshit

My bad. It was in the constitution. I knew I had read it long ago.

Article IV Section 3

"

New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

"

Where does that say states can't secede?

It clearly states that FEDERAL PROPERTY REMAINS FEDERAL PROPERTY NO MATTER the action of the State.

meaningless if a state secedes. It's no longer part of the union and not subject to the Constitution.

They NEVER OWNED the property so whether they secede or not that IS NOT THEIR property.

 

[Asclepias]

Did the states own any property?

None that the feds couldnt come in and take over.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

My bad. It was a SCOTUS decision. 1812

???

What decision?

It was completely unclear until the war. It was not legally cleared up until Texas v. White.

SCOTUS decision based on New Englands flirtation with secession in 1812.

Can you give me a cite, or even a name?

Hartford Convention | Federalist Party, Secession, New England

Hartford Convention, (December 15, 1814–January 5, 1815), in U.S. history, a secret meeting in Hartford, Connecticut, of Federalist delegates from Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont who were dissatisfied with Pres. James Madison’s mercantile policies and the

www.britannica.com

A secret meeting is not a SCOTUS decision. I don't get what you are trying to show me.

The issue of whether secession was legal was still debatable all the way up to the end of the war, and legally not clarified until 1869.

Unless you have something else, there was no absolute duty to remain in the Union and nothing binding about it.

Just saying the idea came from that instance that later led to the court decision in 1869.

But, it was still legitimately unclear. Those arguing that secession was legal did so in good faith (not just trying to bullshit their way out). So, it's really hard to call those States "traitors" when their actions were not clearly forbidden and appeared to be voluntary in/voluntary out.

Call them racists. Call them losers. Call them anything under the sun. Just not "traitors" because that is bullshit

My bad. It was in the constitution. I knew I had read it long ago.

Article IV Section 3

"

New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

"

Where does that say states can't secede?

It clearly states that FEDERAL PROPERTY REMAINS FEDERAL PROPERTY NO MATTER the action of the State.

meaningless if a state secedes. It's no longer part of the union and not subject to the Constitution.

They NEVER OWNED the property so whether they secede or not that IS NOT THEIR property.

What property? Fort Sumter?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

My bad. It was in the constitution. I knew I had read it long ago.

Article IV Section 3

Section 3.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Still not seeing it. Nothing in there forbids States from seceding.

"...or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

If you want to secede you have to get off US property.

That applies to territories, not States. Otherwise, there would be no need for this language:
"nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

No it applies to property which is right there n the definition. Once you become part of the US you are now US property regardless of if its a state or territory.

"...or other property belonging to the United States;"

So, what was the property of the United States?

Congress...needful rules.....respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.

All the land within its scope of ownership at that time.

Which was?

All the land mass it owned including the states that attempted to seceed and lost.

WRONG.

I see you IGNORING those arguing that the US started the war yet it clearly states in the Constitution that Federal land remains Federal land no matter what an individual State does, I see you actually ignore that while supporting those that make the claim the US started the war.

You see it wrong.

If the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, it was the South who started the war, because the U.S. had the right to occupy it's property. AT THE SAME TIME, if the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, the States owned all the other property in their boundaries, and secession was NOT ILLEGAL!!!

SO, WHICH IS IT???

Secession was still illegal unless done through Congress the Union was permanent upon JOINING.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Of course they do but the feds can swoop in and take it over.

Sez WHO???

 

[bripat9643]

My bad. It was in the constitution. I knew I had read it long ago.

Article IV Section 3

Section 3.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Still not seeing it. Nothing in there forbids States from seceding.

"...or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

If you want to secede you have to get off US property.

That applies to territories, not States. Otherwise, there would be no need for this language:
"nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

No it applies to property which is right there n the definition. Once you become part of the US you are now US property regardless of if its a state or territory.

"...or other property belonging to the United States;"

So, what was the property of the United States?

Congress...needful rules.....respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.

All the land within its scope of ownership at that time.

Which was?

All the land mass it owned including the states that attempted to seceed and lost.

WRONG.

I see you IGNORING those arguing that the US started the war yet it clearly states in the Constitution that Federal land remains Federal land no matter what an individual State does, I see you actually ignore that while supporting those that make the claim the US started the war.

You see it wrong.

If the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, it was the South who started the war, because the U.S. had the right to occupy it's property. AT THE SAME TIME, if the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, the States owned all the other property in their boundaries, and secession was NOT ILLEGAL!!!

SO, WHICH IS IT???

The U.S. does not have the right to occupy property within the borders of a foreign country. We have military bases in Germany. If the German government told us to leave, could the federal government refuse?

Obviously not. Your theory is in conflict with international law.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

My bad. It was in the constitution. I knew I had read it long ago.

Article IV Section 3

Section 3.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Still not seeing it. Nothing in there forbids States from seceding.

"...or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

If you want to secede you have to get off US property.

That applies to territories, not States. Otherwise, there would be no need for this language:
"nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

No it applies to property which is right there n the definition. Once you become part of the US you are now US property regardless of if its a state or territory.

"...or other property belonging to the United States;"

So, what was the property of the United States?

Congress...needful rules.....respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.

All the land within its scope of ownership at that time.

Which was?

All the land mass it owned including the states that attempted to seceed and lost.

WRONG.

I see you IGNORING those arguing that the US started the war yet it clearly states in the Constitution that Federal land remains Federal land no matter what an individual State does, I see you actually ignore that while supporting those that make the claim the US started the war.

You see it wrong.

If the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, it was the South who started the war, because the U.S. had the right to occupy it's property. AT THE SAME TIME, if the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, the States owned all the other property in their boundaries, and secession was NOT ILLEGAL!!!

SO, WHICH IS IT???

Secession was still illegal unless done through Congress the Union was permanent upon JOINING.

SEZ WHO??? What are you relying on to make that claim. Please post what you are relying on.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

My bad. It was a SCOTUS decision. 1812

???

What decision?

It was completely unclear until the war. It was not legally cleared up until Texas v. White.

SCOTUS decision based on New Englands flirtation with secession in 1812.

Can you give me a cite, or even a name?

Hartford Convention | Federalist Party, Secession, New England

Hartford Convention, (December 15, 1814–January 5, 1815), in U.S. history, a secret meeting in Hartford, Connecticut, of Federalist delegates from Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont who were dissatisfied with Pres. James Madison’s mercantile policies and the

www.britannica.com

A secret meeting is not a SCOTUS decision. I don't get what you are trying to show me.

The issue of whether secession was legal was still debatable all the way up to the end of the war, and legally not clarified until 1869.

Unless you have something else, there was no absolute duty to remain in the Union and nothing binding about it.

Just saying the idea came from that instance that later led to the court decision in 1869.

But, it was still legitimately unclear. Those arguing that secession was legal did so in good faith (not just trying to bullshit their way out). So, it's really hard to call those States "traitors" when their actions were not clearly forbidden and appeared to be voluntary in/voluntary out.

Call them racists. Call them losers. Call them anything under the sun. Just not "traitors" because that is bullshit

My bad. It was in the constitution. I knew I had read it long ago.

Article IV Section 3

"

New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

"

Where does that say states can't secede?

It clearly states that FEDERAL PROPERTY REMAINS FEDERAL PROPERTY NO MATTER the action of the State.

meaningless if a state secedes. It's no longer part of the union and not subject to the Constitution.

They NEVER OWNED the property so whether they secede or not that IS NOT THEIR property.

What property? Fort Sumter?

YES once deeded to the Federal Government NO ACTION by a State can change that. NONE NADA ZIPPO.

 

[bripat9643]

My bad. It was in the constitution. I knew I had read it long ago.

Article IV Section 3

Section 3.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Still not seeing it. Nothing in there forbids States from seceding.

"...or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

If you want to secede you have to get off US property.

That applies to territories, not States. Otherwise, there would be no need for this language:
"nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

No it applies to property which is right there n the definition. Once you become part of the US you are now US property regardless of if its a state or territory.

"...or other property belonging to the United States;"

So, what was the property of the United States?

Congress...needful rules.....respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.

All the land within its scope of ownership at that time.

Which was?

All the land mass it owned including the states that attempted to seceed and lost.

WRONG.

I see you IGNORING those arguing that the US started the war yet it clearly states in the Constitution that Federal land remains Federal land no matter what an individual State does, I see you actually ignore that while supporting those that make the claim the US started the war.

You see it wrong.

If the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, it was the South who started the war, because the U.S. had the right to occupy it's property. AT THE SAME TIME, if the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, the States owned all the other property in their boundaries, and secession was NOT ILLEGAL!!!

SO, WHICH IS IT???

Secession was still illegal unless done through Congress the Union was permanent upon JOINING.

prove it, asshole.

 

[Asclepias]

Of course they do but the feds can swoop in and take it over.

Sez WHO???

Emminant domain.

 

[bripat9643]

My bad. It was a SCOTUS decision. 1812

???

What decision?

It was completely unclear until the war. It was not legally cleared up until Texas v. White.

SCOTUS decision based on New Englands flirtation with secession in 1812.

Can you give me a cite, or even a name?

Hartford Convention | Federalist Party, Secession, New England

Hartford Convention, (December 15, 1814–January 5, 1815), in U.S. history, a secret meeting in Hartford, Connecticut, of Federalist delegates from Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont who were dissatisfied with Pres. James Madison’s mercantile policies and the

www.britannica.com

A secret meeting is not a SCOTUS decision. I don't get what you are trying to show me.

The issue of whether secession was legal was still debatable all the way up to the end of the war, and legally not clarified until 1869.

Unless you have something else, there was no absolute duty to remain in the Union and nothing binding about it.

Just saying the idea came from that instance that later led to the court decision in 1869.

But, it was still legitimately unclear. Those arguing that secession was legal did so in good faith (not just trying to bullshit their way out). So, it's really hard to call those States "traitors" when their actions were not clearly forbidden and appeared to be voluntary in/voluntary out.

Call them racists. Call them losers. Call them anything under the sun. Just not "traitors" because that is bullshit

My bad. It was in the constitution. I knew I had read it long ago.

Article IV Section 3

"

New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

"

Where does that say states can't secede?

It clearly states that FEDERAL PROPERTY REMAINS FEDERAL PROPERTY NO MATTER the action of the State.

meaningless if a state secedes. It's no longer part of the union and not subject to the Constitution.

They NEVER OWNED the property so whether they secede or not that IS NOT THEIR property.

What property? Fort Sumter?

YES once deeded to the Federal Government NO ACTION by a State can change that. NONE NADA ZIPPO.

Wrong. If it secedes, it can do whatever it likes with the property.

You keep making claims with no visible means of support.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

My bad. It was in the constitution. I knew I had read it long ago.

Article IV Section 3

Section 3.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Still not seeing it. Nothing in there forbids States from seceding.

"...or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

If you want to secede you have to get off US property.

That applies to territories, not States. Otherwise, there would be no need for this language:
"nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

No it applies to property which is right there n the definition. Once you become part of the US you are now US property regardless of if its a state or territory.

"...or other property belonging to the United States;"

So, what was the property of the United States?

Congress...needful rules.....respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.

All the land within its scope of ownership at that time.

Which was?

All the land mass it owned including the states that attempted to seceed and lost.

WRONG.

I see you IGNORING those arguing that the US started the war yet it clearly states in the Constitution that Federal land remains Federal land no matter what an individual State does, I see you actually ignore that while supporting those that make the claim the US started the war.

You see it wrong.

If the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, it was the South who started the war, because the U.S. had the right to occupy it's property. AT THE SAME TIME, if the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, the States owned all the other property in their boundaries, and secession was NOT ILLEGAL!!!

SO, WHICH IS IT???

The U.S. does not have the right to occupy property within the borders of a foreign country. We have military bases in Germany. If the German government told us to leave, could the federal government refuse?

Obviously not. Your their is in conflict with international law.

That is a different argument and one that COULD have been settled if Lincoln and the South BOTH didn't want a war.

There is a legitimate claim by each side that the other side started it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

My bad. It was in the constitution. I knew I had read it long ago.

Article IV Section 3

Section 3.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Still not seeing it. Nothing in there forbids States from seceding.

"...or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

If you want to secede you have to get off US property.

That applies to territories, not States. Otherwise, there would be no need for this language:
"nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

No it applies to property which is right there n the definition. Once you become part of the US you are now US property regardless of if its a state or territory.

"...or other property belonging to the United States;"

So, what was the property of the United States?

Congress...needful rules.....respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.

All the land within its scope of ownership at that time.

Which was?

All the land mass it owned including the states that attempted to seceed and lost.

WRONG.

I see you IGNORING those arguing that the US started the war yet it clearly states in the Constitution that Federal land remains Federal land no matter what an individual State does, I see you actually ignore that while supporting those that make the claim the US started the war.

You see it wrong.

If the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, it was the South who started the war, because the U.S. had the right to occupy it's property. AT THE SAME TIME, if the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, the States owned all the other property in their boundaries, and secession was NOT ILLEGAL!!!

SO, WHICH IS IT???

Secession was still illegal unless done through Congress the Union was permanent upon JOINING.

SEZ WHO??? What are you relying on to make that claim. Please post what you are relying on.

LOL now we go in circles it has been posted ,by agreeing to the Constitution a State became a permanent part of the UNION, the only LEGAL way out is through Congress.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Of course they do but the feds can swoop in and take it over.

Sez WHO???

Emminant domain.

Emminant.....


I can't.....

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about and you are just arguing because you KNOW I am right and that chaps your ass.