Why do liberals say secession is TREASON?

[bripat9643]

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

We are now going around in circles. We already discussed that the basis of action is not the Constitution. That the Constitution is created to secure rights of people. That based on the nature in which we founded our nation we not only established a government but a basis for which we have the right to establish a government.

The people of the union have the authority to overthrow those governments of the South for their failure to secure the rights of people. There is no need to create a law that establishes this authority as it is a right that proceeds the establishment of a government of laws.

If the Constitution doesn't authorize it, then how can you claim the South wasn't entitled to give the federal government the middle finger salute?

 

[bripat9643]

The government has the right to put down insurrection. Some leaders in the southern states fomented exactly that, and raised troops to resist legal authority. Any government would move to suppress that.

Secession isn't insurrection.

Next already exploded stupid argument.

 

[bripat9643]

Yawn.

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.

No discussion in which you are participating is honest.

 

[bripat9643]

Did I miss someone pointing out exactly where and when, date and place, Perpetual Union clearly ended?

The "perpetual union" ended the minute the Country ratified the Constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

YOU are not paying attention.
I asked you what the federal government could legally and constitionally do -- in a non-secessionist reality - to end slavery in the southern states, had the political process failed to do so.
Well?

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.

Yes he can. That's exactly what he's asking you to do, numskull.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

<YAWN!>

 

[there4eyeM]

Did I miss someone pointing out exactly where and when, date and place, Perpetual Union clearly ended?

The "perpetual union" ended the minute the Country ratified the Constitution.

This is a minority view.
Point out specifically what ended that Union and when?

 

[JakeStarkey]

History and constitutional interpretation have led to the determination that secession is unlawful and those who call for it are conspiring to break the law. As such, they can be treated as criminals.

 

[bripat9643]

Did I miss someone pointing out exactly where and when, date and place, Perpetual Union clearly ended?

The "perpetual union" ended the minute the Country ratified the Constitution.

This is a minority view.
Point out specifically what ended that Union and when?

I just told you, numskull. the Constitution ended the the so-called "perpetual union" under the Articles of Confederation.

 

[there4eyeM]

For someone so quick to use insulting terms to people they don't know, you don't exude intelligence yourself.
I have seen your statement to that effect. That has no weight with me. You obviously have no references with authority to back up this pet theory of yours, or you would have produced it. I have found none. As this shoots holes in your vociferous support of the slavery-based system of the rebellion, you clearly avoid it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There are no holes in the cause of the slavery-based system of the rebellion,

 

[Contumacious]

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.

Ain't that some shit?
There is a legal process for statehood but not one for secession.

Why do you think this is important and/or compelling?

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"

Aside form the fact that this response doesn't address the question put to it...
You're arguing that the slaves should have risen up against the southern states.

Yep, absolutely.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The slaves had every legal, constitutional right to take their owners, shoot them in the head, and feed them to the hogs. Well, to allow all to enjoy it, cut their hamstrings and dump them in the hog pen.

 

[BlindBoo]

The slaves had every legal, constitutional right to take their owners, shoot them in the head, and feed them to the hogs. Well, to allow all to enjoy it, cut their hamstrings and dump them in the hog pen.

Nat Turner executed in Virginia - Nov 11 1831 - HISTORY.com

Turner, a slave and educated minister, believed that he was chosen by God to lead his people out of slavery. On August 21, 1831, he initiated his slave uprising by slaughtering Joseph Travis, his slave owner, and Travis’ family. With seven followers, Turner set off across the countryside, hoping to rally hundreds of slaves to join his insurrection. Turner planned to capture the county armory at Jerusalem, Virginia, and then march 30 miles to Dismal Swamp, where his rebels would be able to elude their pursuers.

During the next two days and nights, Turner and 75 followers rampaged through Southampton County, killing about 60 whites. Local whites resisted the rebels, and then the state militia–consisting of some 3,000 men–crushed the rebellion. Only a few miles from Jerusalem, Turner and all his followers were dispersed, captured, or killed. In the aftermath of the rebellion, scores of African Americans were lynched, though many of them had not participated in the revolt. Turner himself was not captured until the end of October, and after confessing without regret to his role in the bloodshed, he was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. On November 11, he was hanged in Jerusalem.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

There is no mention in the constitution of "perpetual union". That is a lie spread by lincoln. He was both a politician and a corporate lawyer. Lying was his middle name.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sux to be you then, shoots. We are a perpetual union. Tough.

 

[Bombur]

If the Constitution doesn't authorize it, then how can you claim the South wasn't entitled to give the federal government the middle finger salute?

I think that is a grey area honestly but I simply don't care about it because it is a non-issue compared to the right of the people to destroy those state governments and replace them with a government that did their job.

 

[Bombur]

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?"

Those duties established in the DOI of all governments. To secure the rights of people.

There is no way to argue about the Civil War that doesn't end with the South being run by evil slave owners who are guilty of crimes against God, humanity, and their own nation.

 

[Bombur]

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.

The DOI didn't exist at the time?

You need to go back to school son.

 

[bripat9643]

If the Constitution doesn't authorize it, then how can you claim the South wasn't entitled to give the federal government the middle finger salute?

I think that is a grey area honestly but I simply don't care about it because it is a non-issue compared to the right of the people to destroy those state governments and replace them with a government that did their job.

The federal govern has no such authority.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk