The Gettysburg Address

[rightwinger]

To even imply that the traitors remotely thought that all men are created equal shows what abdouchebag Mencken is

It doesn't matter what they thought. The claim that Lincoln and the Northern states were fighting for the right of self-determination is obvious hooey. They were fighting to impose confiscatory tariffs on the Southern states, and nothing more.

IMHO we need to expand on that a bit.

First, most Union soldiers were not knowingly fighting for imposition of tariffs. Lincoln and the R Party was. The Union soldier likely knew nothing of tariffs, which were purposely designed to harm the South's economy and enrich a few northern industrialists who just happened to richly fund the R party.

Much of the Union army were conscripted immigrants with few prospects. They did what they were told to make a buck. Some of course, thought they were patriotic and some where fighting to end slavery, by fighting Lincoln's War of Aggression.

In reality, the North was fighting to PREVENT self-determination of the southern states...completely at odds with Lincoln's dumb speech at Gettysburg. The southern soldier was the one fighting for self determination.

But what do I know....I am just a lover of slavery and a Neo-Confederate....

 

[gipper]

He didn't even invade because of Ft Sumter. He invaded because he wanted to Force Southern states to pay the Morrill tariff.

Everything else is irrelevant.

Your little confederate undies are on too tight, reb. Check yourself in somewhere if you still have an ounce of rationality left.

I find it most inconsistent that you clearly comprehend FDR's tyranny, but fail to see Lincoln's.

It would seem you believe Lincoln's terrible war of aggression against fellow Americans, resulting in 850k deaths and destruction of half the nation, is not nearly as tyrannical as interning Japanese Americans during WWII. Is this not contradictory?

 

[Picaro]

'unkotare' is just a mentally ill troll. Ignore him/her/it/mutant.

 

[Unkotare]

He didn't even invade because of Ft Sumter. He invaded because he wanted to Force Southern states to pay the Morrill tariff.

Everything else is irrelevant.

Your little confederate undies are on too tight, reb. Check yourself in somewhere if you still have an ounce of rationality left.

I find it most inconsistent that you clearly comprehend FDR's tyranny, but fail to see Lincoln's.

It would seem you believe Lincoln's terrible war of aggression against fellow Americans, resulting in 850k deaths and destruction of half the nation, is not nearly as tyrannical as interning Japanese Americans during WWII. Is this not contradictory?

The American Civil War was not a war of aggression by the North, but a response to an act of war by traitors in the South. The deaths of so many brave Americans - North and South - are on the ledgers of some few arrogant, selfish fools in the South. President Lincoln took some extra-Constitutional liberties for sure, but he did so to keep our Union in tact and (as became clear during the war if not entirely before) to settle an untenable contradiction in our Republic and the principles upon which it stands. That fucking scumbag FDR cannot claim anything even remotely the same.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I realize upsetting your comfortable version of history is causing you severe distress.

You're not upsetting anything and you're not changing anything. You are just running around in circles waving your arms around and screaming like a maniac. The sooner you let this weird obsession go the better off you'll be.

Don't expect any change in him.

 

[Picaro]

They were in all-black units, commanded by white unit commanders, and they did indeed fight well, given the chance, but it doesn't say much re Republicans or Lincoln's motivations. Here are some photos along similar lines:

These are from axishistory.com's thread on blacks in the Wehrmacht, at least most of them are, I think.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=12739

None of these would change the history of Hitler's Germany.

 

[Rotagilla]

Your little confederate undies are on too tight, reb. Check yourself in somewhere if you still have an ounce of rationality left.

I find it most inconsistent that you clearly comprehend FDR's tyranny, but fail to see Lincoln's.

It would seem you believe Lincoln's terrible war of aggression against fellow Americans, resulting in 850k deaths and destruction of half the nation, is not nearly as tyrannical as interning Japanese Americans during WWII. Is this not contradictory?

The American Civil War was not a war of aggression by the North, but a response to an act of war by traitors in the South. The deaths of so many brave Americans - North and South - are on the ledgers of some few arrogant, selfish fools in the South. President Lincoln took some extra-Constitutional liberties for sure, but he did so to keep our Union in tact and (as became clear during the war if not entirely before) to settle an untenable contradiction in our Republic and the principles upon which it stands. That fucking scumbag FDR cannot claim anything even remotely the same.

The south tried to peacefully secede. The south offered to pay for all federal facilities on their soil.
lincoln invaded the south to reinforce a fort that no longer belonged to his country, knowing (and hoping) it would be a provocation.

General Beauregard held negotiations with the commanding officer, Major Anderson, in the fort and offered them passage if they evacuated.
Anderson purposely delayed hoping reinforcements would arrive.

When the reinforcements arrived in the harbor (an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation) the south was forced to prevent the resupply and fired on the fort for several hours..until they finally surrendered.
No one was killed.
It was more for effect than a serious attempt to destroy the troops....but lincoln now had his excuse to wage total, scorched earth war on fellow americans who wanted to peacefully withdraw from the union and be left alone.


EDIT;
Major Anderson and the garrison were safely evacuated and immediately returned to the north.

 

[Unkotare]

You apologists for Confederate traitors with blood on their hands will never change history no matter how hard you try.

If you are still unhappy with our Union today - leave. Try to leave with any part of our country and you will be destroyed as surely as those brave men who foolishly followed the lead of arrogant, traitorous fools so long ago.

The traitors in the south were filthy curs justly brought to heel. They are, of course, the forebears of today's democrat party. They led good men to their deaths in the name of evil. In due course, they were put down. That is fact and it will not change no matter how anyone tries to revise history.

 

[rightwinger]

I find it most inconsistent that you clearly comprehend FDR's tyranny, but fail to see Lincoln's.

It would seem you believe Lincoln's terrible war of aggression against fellow Americans, resulting in 850k deaths and destruction of half the nation, is not nearly as tyrannical as interning Japanese Americans during WWII. Is this not contradictory?

The American Civil War was not a war of aggression by the North, but a response to an act of war by traitors in the South. The deaths of so many brave Americans - North and South - are on the ledgers of some few arrogant, selfish fools in the South. President Lincoln took some extra-Constitutional liberties for sure, but he did so to keep our Union in tact and (as became clear during the war if not entirely before) to settle an untenable contradiction in our Republic and the principles upon which it stands. That fucking scumbag FDR cannot claim anything even remotely the same.

The south tried to peacefully secede. The south offered to pay for all federal facilities on their soil.
lincoln invaded the south to reinforce a fort that no longer belonged to his country, knowing (and hoping) it would be a provocation.

General Beauregard held negotiations with the commanding officer, Major Anderson, in the fort and offered them passage if they evacuated.
Anderson purposely delayed hoping reinforcements would arrive.

When the reinforcements arrived in the harbor (an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation) the south was forced to prevent the resupply and fired on the fort for several hours..until they finally surrendered.
No one was killed.
It was more for effect than a serious attempt to destroy the troops....but lincoln now had his excuse to wage total, scorched earth war on fellow americans who wanted to peacefully withdraw from the union and be left alone.


EDIT;
Major Anderson and the garrison were safely evacuated and immediately returned to the north.

The United States was under no obligation to cede territory to traitors

Traitors who eventually fired upon their own flag

 

[Rotagilla]

The American Civil War was not a war of aggression by the North, but a response to an act of war by traitors in the South. The deaths of so many brave Americans - North and South - are on the ledgers of some few arrogant, selfish fools in the South. President Lincoln took some extra-Constitutional liberties for sure, but he did so to keep our Union in tact and (as became clear during the war if not entirely before) to settle an untenable contradiction in our Republic and the principles upon which it stands. That fucking scumbag FDR cannot claim anything even remotely the same.

The south tried to peacefully secede. The south offered to pay for all federal facilities on their soil.
lincoln invaded the south to reinforce a fort that no longer belonged to his country, knowing (and hoping) it would be a provocation.

General Beauregard held negotiations with the commanding officer, Major Anderson, in the fort and offered them passage if they evacuated.
Anderson purposely delayed hoping reinforcements would arrive.

When the reinforcements arrived in the harbor (an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation) the south was forced to prevent the resupply and fired on the fort for several hours..until they finally surrendered.
No one was killed.
It was more for effect than a serious attempt to destroy the troops....but lincoln now had his excuse to wage total, scorched earth war on fellow americans who wanted to peacefully withdraw from the union and be left alone.


EDIT;
Major Anderson and the garrison were safely evacuated and immediately returned to the north.

The United States was under no obligation to cede territory to traitors

Traitors who eventually fired upon their own flag

I'll repeat it again: the south offered to pay for all federal installations on their territory. They didn't expect the north to "cede" them. That's a red herring.


Secession wasn't/isn't illegal or traitorous.

It was un-constitutional for Lincoln to interfere with the Southern states leaving the Union, to suspend the rule of law, and to attack unarmed civilians.
EDIT; see the 10th amendment.


This country was born through secession, you may recall...and the reasons were valid...remember?

Tell me what's wrong with this, if you can?

When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

..... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —

Reasonable, right?..the british didn't think so...They called these people "traitors" and hung as many as they could..we call them "Patriots".

Here's what the lying bastard lincoln said in congress;

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can may revolutionize and make their own of so many of the territory as they inhabit."


What's the problem?

 

[rightwinger]

The south tried to peacefully secede. The south offered to pay for all federal facilities on their soil.
lincoln invaded the south to reinforce a fort that no longer belonged to his country, knowing (and hoping) it would be a provocation.

General Beauregard held negotiations with the commanding officer, Major Anderson, in the fort and offered them passage if they evacuated.
Anderson purposely delayed hoping reinforcements would arrive.

When the reinforcements arrived in the harbor (an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation) the south was forced to prevent the resupply and fired on the fort for several hours..until they finally surrendered.
No one was killed.
It was more for effect than a serious attempt to destroy the troops....but lincoln now had his excuse to wage total, scorched earth war on fellow americans who wanted to peacefully withdraw from the union and be left alone.


EDIT;
Major Anderson and the garrison were safely evacuated and immediately returned to the north.

The United States was under no obligation to cede territory to traitors

Traitors who eventually fired upon their own flag

I'll repeat it again: the south offered to pay for all federal installations on their territory. They didn't expect the north to "cede" them. That's a red herring.


Secession wasn't/isn't illegal or traitorous.

It was un-constitutional for Lincoln to interfere with the Southern states leaving the Union, to suspend the rule of law, and to attack unarmed civilians.
EDIT; see the 10th amendment.


This country was born through secession, you may recall...and the reasons were valid...remember?

Tell me what's wrong with this, if you can?

When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

..... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —

Reasonable, right?..the british didn't think so...They called these people "traitors" and hung as many as they could..we call them "Patriots".

Here's what the lying bastard lincoln said in congress;

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can may revolutionize and make their own of so many of the territory as they inhabit."


What's the problem?

They had no rights to ANY territory, whether they paid or not. It was United States territory
There are no provisions in the Constitution that they signed to leave the United States

The traitors fired on their own flag so that they could maintain the right to own another human being

 

[Rotagilla]

The United States was under no obligation to cede territory to traitors

Traitors who eventually fired upon their own flag

I'll repeat it again: the south offered to pay for all federal installations on their territory. They didn't expect the north to "cede" them. That's a red herring.


Secession wasn't/isn't illegal or traitorous.

It was un-constitutional for Lincoln to interfere with the Southern states leaving the Union, to suspend the rule of law, and to attack unarmed civilians.
EDIT; see the 10th amendment.


This country was born through secession, you may recall...and the reasons were valid...remember?

Tell me what's wrong with this, if you can?

When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

..... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —

Reasonable, right?..the british didn't think so...They called these people "traitors" and hung as many as they could..we call them "Patriots".

Here's what the lying bastard lincoln said in congress;

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can may revolutionize and make their own of so many of the territory as they inhabit."


What's the problem?

They had no rights to ANY territory, whether they paid or not. It was United States territory
There are no provisions in the Constitution that they signed to leave the United States

They had rights to the territory that was encompassed within their state boundaries...and they attempted to PAY for the fort ANYWAY...but the lying bastard lincoln just HAD to have his war...

secession wasn't illegal. the 10th amendment proves that. The legislatures of the various confederate states voted and the proposition was approved honestly and legally.

The north had no legal right to invade sovereign territory no matter what the pretext..as lincoln said himself in his address to congress...which I will post AGAIN for you...

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can may revolutionize and make their own of so many of the territory as they inhabit."

The people of the south took the lying bastard at his word and followed the rules and tried to peacefully secede...lincoln sicced the war criminal sherman (and others) on them.

Where do you get the idea that the north "owned" the south or could "forbid" them from exercising their rights as free citizens to withdraw from the union?

Let me ask you again; Were the colonists in 1776 patriots or traitors?

The traitors fired on their own flag so that they could maintain the right to own another human being

No. They had their own national flag at this time.

They fired on the flag of the invaders of their homeland....and we already know the war wasn't fought to keep (or free) the slaves...

 

[rightwinger]

I'll repeat it again: the south offered to pay for all federal installations on their territory. They didn't expect the north to "cede" them. That's a red herring.


Secession wasn't/isn't illegal or traitorous.

It was un-constitutional for Lincoln to interfere with the Southern states leaving the Union, to suspend the rule of law, and to attack unarmed civilians.
EDIT; see the 10th amendment.


This country was born through secession, you may recall...and the reasons were valid...remember?

Tell me what's wrong with this, if you can?

When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

..... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —

Reasonable, right?..the british didn't think so...They called these people "traitors" and hung as many as they could..we call them "Patriots".

Here's what the lying bastard lincoln said in congress;

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can may revolutionize and make their own of so many of the territory as they inhabit."


What's the problem?

They had no rights to ANY territory, whether they paid or not. It was United States territory
There are no provisions in the Constitution that they signed to leave the United States

They had rights to the territory that was encompassed within their state boundaries...and they attempted to PAY for the fort ANYWAY...but the lying bastard lincoln just HAD to have his war...

secession wasn't illegal. the 10th amendment proves that. The legislatures of the various confederate states voted and the proposition was approved honestly and legally.

The north had no legal right to invade sovereign territory no matter what the pretext..as lincoln said himself in his address to congress...which I will post AGAIN for you...

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can may revolutionize and make their own of so many of the territory as they inhabit."

The people of the south took the lying bastard at his word and followed the rules and tried to peacefully secede...lincoln sicced the war criminal sherman (and others) on them.

Where do you get the idea that the north "owned" the south or could "forbid" them from exercising their rights as free citizens to withdraw from the union?

Let me ask you again; Were the colonists in 1776 patriots or traitors?

The traitors fired on their own flag so that they could maintain the right to own another human being

No. They had their own national flag at this time.

They fired on the flag of the invaders of their homeland....and we already know the war wasn't fought to keep (or free) the slaves...

Secession was not legal. If it was, our Constitution would include provisions for both joining and leaving the union. As written, it only provides how a state joins the union

Only traitors take up arms against their country

 

[gipper]

Your little confederate undies are on too tight, reb. Check yourself in somewhere if you still have an ounce of rationality left.

I find it most inconsistent that you clearly comprehend FDR's tyranny, but fail to see Lincoln's.

It would seem you believe Lincoln's terrible war of aggression against fellow Americans, resulting in 850k deaths and destruction of half the nation, is not nearly as tyrannical as interning Japanese Americans during WWII. Is this not contradictory?

The American Civil War was not a war of aggression by the North, but a response to an act of war by traitors in the South. The deaths of so many brave Americans - North and South - are on the ledgers of some few arrogant, selfish fools in the South. President Lincoln took some extra-Constitutional liberties for sure, but he did so to keep our Union in tact and (as became clear during the war if not entirely before) to settle an untenable contradiction in our Republic and the principles upon which it stands. That fucking scumbag FDR cannot claim anything even remotely the same.

You believe the federal government has the right to wage war against fellow citizens who no longer wish to be subjects of the government. To keep the Union intact, the government can murder any citizen who refuses to abide by it's laws and takes up arms to protect themselves from the government's military.

Lets say the Japanese Americans during WWII refused internment and peacefully sought to create their own nation within the USA, would the federal government have the right to murder them all, if they resisted?

 

[Rotagilla]

They had no rights to ANY territory, whether they paid or not. It was United States territory
There are no provisions in the Constitution that they signed to leave the United States

They had rights to the territory that was encompassed within their state boundaries...and they attempted to PAY for the fort ANYWAY...but the lying bastard lincoln just HAD to have his war...

secession wasn't illegal. the 10th amendment proves that. The legislatures of the various confederate states voted and the proposition was approved honestly and legally.

The north had no legal right to invade sovereign territory no matter what the pretext..as lincoln said himself in his address to congress...which I will post AGAIN for you...

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can may revolutionize and make their own of so many of the territory as they inhabit."

The people of the south took the lying bastard at his word and followed the rules and tried to peacefully secede...lincoln sicced the war criminal sherman (and others) on them.

Where do you get the idea that the north "owned" the south or could "forbid" them from exercising their rights as free citizens to withdraw from the union?

Let me ask you again; Were the colonists in 1776 patriots or traitors?

The traitors fired on their own flag so that they could maintain the right to own another human being

No. They had their own national flag at this time.

They fired on the flag of the invaders of their homeland....and we already know the war wasn't fought to keep (or free) the slaves...

Secession was not legal. If it was, our Constitution would include provisions for both joining and leaving the union. As written, it only provides how a state joins the union

That's (very) faulty logic.
Since it isn't expressly forbidden, it is legal. See the 10th amendment.

Again. Why would you be against people exercising their right to legally vote to peacefully withdraw? What do you imagine gives the federal government the right to forbid people from using the democratic process to vote on withdrawing? Are you against freedom and democracy?

Only traitors take up arms against their country

The south didn't take up arms against their own country. They had withdrawn, formed their own country and were repelling illegal invaders.

Were the colonists in 1776 patriots or traitors?

 

[Rotagilla]

I find it most inconsistent that you clearly comprehend FDR's tyranny, but fail to see Lincoln's.

It would seem you believe Lincoln's terrible war of aggression against fellow Americans, resulting in 850k deaths and destruction of half the nation, is not nearly as tyrannical as interning Japanese Americans during WWII. Is this not contradictory?

The American Civil War was not a war of aggression by the North, but a response to an act of war by traitors in the South. The deaths of so many brave Americans - North and South - are on the ledgers of some few arrogant, selfish fools in the South. President Lincoln took some extra-Constitutional liberties for sure, but he did so to keep our Union in tact and (as became clear during the war if not entirely before) to settle an untenable contradiction in our Republic and the principles upon which it stands. That fucking scumbag FDR cannot claim anything even remotely the same.

You believe the federal government has the right to wage war against fellow citizens who no longer wish to be subjects of the government. To keep the Union intact, the government can murder any citizen who refuses to abide by it's laws and takes up arms to protect themselves from the government's military.

Lets say the Japanese Americans during WWII refused internment and peacefully sought to create their own nation within the USA, would the federal government have the right to murder them all, if they resisted?

All due respect, but the confederate states and their legislatures and citizens have more standing than isolated groups within a state claiming sovereignty like in your example with the japanese.

THAT would DEFINITELY be illegal.

but I've wandered off topic.

 

[bendog]

They had rights to the territory that was encompassed within their state boundaries...and they attempted to PAY for the fort ANYWAY...but the lying bastard lincoln just HAD to have his war...

secession wasn't illegal. the 10th amendment proves that. The legislatures of the various confederate states voted and the proposition was approved honestly and legally.

The north had no legal right to invade sovereign territory no matter what the pretext..as lincoln said himself in his address to congress...which I will post AGAIN for you...

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can may revolutionize and make their own of so many of the territory as they inhabit."

The people of the south took the lying bastard at his word and followed the rules and tried to peacefully secede...lincoln sicced the war criminal sherman (and others) on them.

Where do you get the idea that the north "owned" the south or could "forbid" them from exercising their rights as free citizens to withdraw from the union?

Let me ask you again; Were the colonists in 1776 patriots or traitors?



No. They had their own national flag at this time.

They fired on the flag of the invaders of their homeland....and we already know the war wasn't fought to keep (or free) the slaves...

Secession was not legal. If it was, our Constitution would include provisions for both joining and leaving the union. As written, it only provides how a state joins the union

That's (very) faulty logic.
Since it isn't expressly forbidden, it is legal. See the 10th amendment.

Again. Why would you be against people exercising their right to legally vote to peacefully withdraw? What do you imagine gives the federal government the right to forbid people from using the democratic process to vote on withdrawing? Are you against freedom and democracy?

Only traitors take up arms against their country

The south didn't take up arms against their own country. They had withdrawn, formed their own country and were repelling illegal invaders.

Were the colonists in 1776 patriots or traitors?

Madison, Hamilton, John Jay and others believed that with the adoption of the constitution there was no longer any right of secession. In fact, they successfully opposed an effort to include such a right in the constitution. Further, I disagree with your logic. The intent of the framers was to create a union. If there was an implicit right to "uncomplete it," there was no union. They built a national govt on purpose.

As to rebellion, I think they realized that was the ultimate response to tyranny. But, through the constitution, they believed the govt COULD NOT BE TYRANNICAL unless the govt itself denied protected rights secured by the BOR.

 

[Picaro]

There were no laws or statutes that prohibited secession, until a Supreme Court ruling in 1869, after the war. There were just opinions, which aren't laws.

law - Was the secession of the Confederate states illegal? - History Stack Exchange

Just because I don't like your haircut doesn't mean I get to shoot you.

 

[Rotagilla]

Madison, Hamilton, John Jay and others believed that with the adoption of the constitution there was no longer any right of secession. In fact, they successfully opposed an effort to include such a right in the constitution.

Link?

Further, I disagree with your logic. The intent of the framers was to create a union. If there was an implicit right to "uncomplete it," there was no union. They built a national govt on purpose.

Yes, of course there was no "plan" to dismantle it....that doesn't diminish the fact that secession was proposed and approved in those various states legally.
The 10th amendment covers that. The states retained any rights not expressly forbidden. Secession was not expressly forbidden.

What is it with you people being so set against people choosing the form of government they like and pursuing it?


Any "union" that requires war to force people to remain in it at gun point isn't "free", "democratic" or a "union". Why are you against freedom and democracy?


What do these words mean?

When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —

As to rebellion, I think they realized that was the ultimate response to tyranny. But, through the constitution, they believed the govt COULD NOT BE TYRANNICAL unless the govt itself denied protected rights secured by the BOR.

The 10th amendment protects the rights of states and citizens of those states to secede. The fed govt started a war to enforce its' unconstitutional actions.


What do you think lincoln meant here?

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can may revolutionize and make their own of so many of the territory as they inhabit."

Very straightforward and unambiguous, wouldn't you say? No hidden meaning..nothing complicated...unfortunately, he was a lying bastard.

 

[Picaro]

Madison, Hamilton, John Jay and others believed that with the adoption of the constitution there was no longer any right of secession.

Well, others obviously felt otherwise, like John Quincy Adams and the New England Federalists. Without a specific prohibition, there is no legal basis for launching a war over the issue. Lincoln had other means, like going to the Supreme Court, and a convention of the states to hear out the issues and vote on whether or not it was allowed. Lincoln suspended the law and acted as a dictator. There was no law allowing that, either, so by your reasoning Lincoln was acting illegally as well.