Why do liberals say secession is TREASON?

[there4eyeM]

There is no 'post secession' Union. There is the Perpetual Union and the effort of a few to destroy it would not have stopped it from functioning. Eventually, there would have been more armed resistance on the part of those rebelling and fighting would have spread until the inevitable end that history gave us.

 

[Bombur]

No. It isn't.

You only say that because you don't understand that the basis of the revolution wasn't adhering to the laws of a nation that failed to secure the rights of people but in the principles set forth in the DOI. Your attempt to make everything about the Constitution and the law of the land helps demonstrate that you don't understand the authority in which the law of the land is created. You seem to be under the impression that rights are given to us by the Constitution so when you don't see it written in the Constitution that people have the right to abolish an unjust government you presume that right doesn't exist.

The people of the union therefor the union itself always had the right to take up arms against such a government. It is not spelled out in the Constitution because it is spelled out in the argument that establishes the authority to create the Constitution. An authority that is not rooted in written law but natural law.

 

[Liminal]

No doubt you are yawning right now because you are already so familiar with the details of this history.

I am yawning because YOU aren't addressing what's said here - you're dong nothing more than saying "go read a book".

Read a book.....what a horrible suggestion.

Translation:
You know you cannot substantively address the argument put to you.

Just when I thought there might be an honest discussion going on here. Oh well, I guessed wrong.

Its hard to discuss your posts when they only suggest I read a book.
Since you refuse to substantively address the argument I laid, out, the only reasonable conclusion is that you cannot.

You seem stuck on the same points, which are all blind alleys and dead ends. You have nothing to substantiate the Constitutional legitimacy of secession. An interpretation of what isn't in the Constitution doesn't give a state the right to decide for itself to dismember the United States. The United States isn't a social club, it isn't a voluntary organization, it's a nation state, a republic. Just because some bunch of misguided citizens gets a wild hair up their ass one day isn't nearly enough moral or legal justification for secession.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I am yawning because YOU aren't addressing what's said here - you're dong nothing more than saying "go read a book".

Read a book.....what a horrible suggestion.

Translation:
You know you cannot substantively address the argument put to you.

Just when I thought there might be an honest discussion going on here. Oh well, I guessed wrong.

Its hard to discuss your posts when they only suggest I read a book.
Since you refuse to substantively address the argument I laid, out, the only reasonable conclusion is that you cannot.

You seem stuck on the same points, which are all blind alleys and dead ends.

Please feel free to lay out your substantive argument against them.

 

[Liminal]

I answered this already very clearly. War. To destroy that government that fails so fully in their duty and purpose to secure the rights of people.

Where does the constitution and/or federal law allow the federal government to go to war with the members of the United States?

There isn't, they were improvising....just like the Confederates. You know, like when the Confederacy suspended habius corpus, before Lincoln did. Or maybe like when the Confederacy instituted universal military conscription, before the Union did. Or maybe like when the Confederates fired on Ft. Sumter, initiating hostilities. They obviously didn't think about that one first, they were just winging it, making it up as they went along.

Firing on Sumpter was a mistake, many of them admit that.
Absent any aggression by the south, however, what does the post-secession Union do?

I guess you can speculate on what might have happened.

Just when I thought there might be an honest discussion going on here. Oh well, I guessed wrong.

Difficult to take you seriously now. You haven't given any additional substantiation to the legitimacy of secession. If you think you have, tell me how your argument differs from all those that came before.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You haven't given any addition substantiation to the legitimacy of secession

This is an abject lie; my argument is clear, plain and substantive.
Your counter to that argument is, well, not.

Difficult to take you seriously now.

Said the desert to the grain of sand.

 

[Liminal]

You haven't given any addition substantiation to the legitimacy of secession

This is an abject lie; my argument is clear, plain and substantive.
Your counter to that argument is, well, not.

Difficult to take you seriously now.

Said the desert to the grain of sand.

OK, you win. You've convinced me, secession was always completely legal and constitutional, with no room for discussion or interpretation. It all makes perfect sense now, I don't know why I didn't see it before.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You haven't given any addition substantiation to the legitimacy of secession

This is an abject lie; my argument is clear, plain and substantive.
Your counter to that argument is, well, not.

Difficult to take you seriously now.

Said the desert to the grain of sand.

OK, you win. You've convinced me, secession was always completely legal and constitutional, with no room for discussion or interpretation. It all makes perfect sense now, I don't know why I didn't see it before.

Good to see you've admitted to yourself that you do not have a substantive counter to my argument - that's the first step.

 

[Liminal]

You haven't given any addition substantiation to the legitimacy of secession

This is an abject lie; my argument is clear, plain and substantive.
Your counter to that argument is, well, not.

Difficult to take you seriously now.

Said the desert to the grain of sand.

OK, you win. You've convinced me, secession was always completely legal and constitutional, with no room for discussion or interpretation. It all makes perfect sense now, I don't know why I didn't see it before.

Good to see you've admitted to yourself that you do not have a substantive counter to my argument - that's the first step.

And you can take comfort in the indisputable fact that the Constitution isn't at all vague, requires no interpretation of any kind. All cut and dried.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You haven't given any addition substantiation to the legitimacy of secession

This is an abject lie; my argument is clear, plain and substantive.
Your counter to that argument is, well, not.

Difficult to take you seriously now.

Said the desert to the grain of sand.

OK, you win. You've convinced me, secession was always completely legal and constitutional, with no room for discussion or interpretation. It all makes perfect sense now, I don't know why I didn't see it before.

Good to see you've admitted to yourself that you do not have a substantive counter to my argument - that's the first step.

And you can take comfort in the indisputable fact that the Constitution isn't at all vague, requires no interpretation of any kind. All cut and dried.

We've determined that we both know you cannot substantively counter what I laid out. Time for you to run along.


.

 

[Liminal]

You haven't given any addition substantiation to the legitimacy of secession

This is an abject lie; my argument is clear, plain and substantive.
Your counter to that argument is, well, not.

Difficult to take you seriously now.

Said the desert to the grain of sand.

OK, you win. You've convinced me, secession was always completely legal and constitutional, with no room for discussion or interpretation. It all makes perfect sense now, I don't know why I didn't see it before.

Good to see you've admitted to yourself that you do not have a substantive counter to my argument - that's the first step.

And you can take comfort in the indisputable fact that the Constitution isn't at all vague, requires no interpretation of any kind. All cut and dried.

We've determined that we both know you cannot substantively counter what I laid out. Time for you to run along.


.

Hardly fair, since you're obviously such a skilled and masterful debater. Who could possibly refute your scholarly insights?

 

[there4eyeM]

The Perpetual Union was never ended. Session was not an option except by violence or consensus. There was no consensus. The rebellion was put down.
Rebellion against one's own country is treason.

 

[bripat9643]

So... based on.... nothing. Thank you.

Considerably more than you have now.

Please -- feel free to share.

Wouldn't a constitutional amendment legalizing a formal process for secession solve your problem?

As -my- argument is demonstrably sound, -I- don't have a problem here.

No, you still haven't even begun to deal with the fundamental problem with your argument. There is no legal process for secession. Perhaps you don't really want one, I can only guess why.

There's also no "legal process" for breaking a contract. Does that mean you can't break one?

 

[bripat9643]

The Perpetual Union was never ended. Session was not an option except by violence or consensus. There was no consensus. The rebellion was put down.
Rebellion against one's own country is treason.

Repeating that 10,000 times won't make it true.

 

[bripat9643]

I can only speculate but ideally quickly and harshly.

Specifically?

I am not sure you understand what you are asking. You are asking me to speculate how the government would have made slavery illegal in a world that never existed. There are a lot of ways a nation can democratically make slavery illegal. The Declaration also allows for people to use force to fight against a government that failed to do so.

Either way the slave states were so clearly in violation of their duty while also at the same time completely deluded with the idea they weren't that war was inevitable and that is why they started it.

What "duties?"

 

[bripat9643]

Please -- feel free to share.

Wouldn't a constitutional amendment legalizing a formal process for secession solve your problem?

As -my- argument is demonstrably sound, -I- don't have a problem here.

No, you still haven't even begun to deal with the fundamental problem with your argument. There is no legal process for secession.

That in no way means that the states did not retain the right to succession.

You can't retain something you never had. You either have a formalized legal process or you have illegal rebellion.

Horseshit. That's a novel legal theory with no visible means of support.

 

[bripat9643]

How can the federal government make war agaunst the states?
Under what constitutional/legal authority can the federal government do that?

The slave states were in violation of the rights of mankind. They didn't need legal justification. Whether you think they had legal justification or not is immaterial.

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.

Horseshit. They weren't in violation of the Constitution. The federal government is required to comply with the Constitution, not some lame utopian theory that didn't even exist at the time.

 

[bripat9643]

When a government acts outside its given authority we call it tyranny. regardless of the reason behind the act.

The authority in question was given to them by God and it was given to all people. So not tyranny.

That's what the Founders said about the Constitution, and that document legalized slavery.

Ignoring the written law is tyranny.

 

[bripat9643]

As -my- argument is demonstrably sound, -I- don't have a problem here.

No, you still haven't even begun to deal with the fundamental problem with your argument. There is no legal process for secession.

That in no way means that the states did not retain the right to succession.

You can't retain something you never had.

All of the states voluntarily chose to associate with other states to form a union; absent any language to the contrary, that association remains voluntary - the right exists and is retained.
Can you cite any such language?

You either have a formalized legal process or you have illegal rebellion

False dichotomy.

Let's consult some historians on this question.
Dwight Pitcaithley Southern Secession Video C-SPAN.org

Why would anyone care about the opinion of some pinko, government subsidized, propagandist?

 

[bripat9643]

"...absent any language to the contrary, that association remains voluntary - the right exists and is retained.
Can you cite any such language?"
The language is very much there and very much to the contrary and very much ignored because it doesn't fit the narrative of those who would defend the attempt to destroy the nation.

In other words, it doesn't exist.