Why do liberals say secession is TREASON?

[bripat9643]

When you are a member of a club you have the right to leave whenever you wish. That's what the original 13 colonies did and that's what the confederate states did in 1861. Naturally the central authorities don't like it, but what moral argument can they muster to keep you bound.?

I think that Lincoln made a very good decision not to call the attack by Southern Americans on the United States treason.

While it did meet the definition of treason- it was better for the country not to call it treason.

Wrong, numskull, it doesn't come close to the definition of treason. Try actually reading the definition in the Constitution where it's defined, ignoranus

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

The constitution gives an exact definition of treason. Levying war is one of them. Firing on federal facilities and troops was an act of war.

Secession is not making war.

Firing on federal facilities and troops is. The issue has been settled since the war. Confederate troops were given pardons on Christmas Day 1868.

Wrong. If the Philippines told the US government to get the hell out of Subic Bay, the it refused, then it would most certainly not be an act of war for the Philippines to use force and fire on the base to kick out the trespassers.

You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to the rules of war.

 

[M14 Shooter]

When you are a member of a club you have the right to leave whenever you wish. That's what the original 13 colonies did and that's what the confederate states did in 1861. Naturally the central authorities don't like it, but what moral argument can they muster to keep you bound.?

I think that Lincoln made a very good decision not to call the attack by Southern Americans on the United States treason.

While it did meet the definition of treason- it was better for the country not to call it treason.

Wrong, numskull, it doesn't come close to the definition of treason. Try actually reading the definition in the Constitution where it's defined, ignoranus

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

The constitution gives an exact definition of treason. Levying war is one of them. Firing on federal facilities and troops was an act of war.

Secession is not making war.

Firing on federal facilities and troops is

Title of the topic?
Secession.
Its not treason..

 

[M14 Shooter]

it is not just "liberals" who know secessionist loons are treasonous.... everyone normal knows that's the case

I see your backwater Mississippi middle school has yet to teach you the definition of the word "treason".
As soon as you figure it out, you'll understand how embarrassed you should be of your statement.

 

[Liminal]

I think that Lincoln made a very good decision not to call the attack by Southern Americans on the United States treason.

While it did meet the definition of treason- it was better for the country not to call it treason.

Wrong, numskull, it doesn't come close to the definition of treason. Try actually reading the definition in the Constitution where it's defined, ignoranus

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

The constitution gives an exact definition of treason. Levying war is one of them. Firing on federal facilities and troops was an act of war.

Secession is not making war.

Firing on federal facilities and troops is

Title of the topic?
Secession.
Its not treason..

It might not be treason, but it ain't legal either.

 

[IsaacNewton]

If the South as allowed to secede in 1860 there likely would have been further divisions after that so that the U.S. would have become 3-4 tiny little countries.

WW2 would have had a much different outcome, because it was the gigantic industrial output of America that won that war. Not quite on the point of secession but all these actions would have had other consequences.

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong, numskull, it doesn't come close to the definition of treason. Try actually reading the definition in the Constitution where it's defined, ignoranus

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

The constitution gives an exact definition of treason. Levying war is one of them. Firing on federal facilities and troops was an act of war.

Secession is not making war.

Firing on federal facilities and troops is

Title of the topic?
Secession.
Its not treason..

It might not be treason, but it ain't legal either.

Prove it.

 

[bripat9643]

If the South as allowed to secede in 1860 there likely would have been further divisions after that so that the U.S. would have become 3-4 tiny little countries.

WW2 would have had a much different outcome, because it was the gigantic industrial output of America that won that war. Not quite on the point of secession but all these actions would have had other consequences.

If the South had been allowed to secede, it's likely the U.S. would have never entered WW I. The allies would have had to settle for a just peace with the Germans and WW II would never have happened.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wrong, numskull, it doesn't come close to the definition of treason. Try actually reading the definition in the Constitution where it's defined, ignoranus

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

The constitution gives an exact definition of treason. Levying war is one of them. Firing on federal facilities and troops was an act of war.

Secession is not making war.

Firing on federal facilities and troops is

Title of the topic?
Secession.
Its not treason..

It might not be treason, but it ain't legal either.

10th Amendment.
Nothing in the constitution prohibits secession; the right is retained by the state.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If the South as allowed to secede in 1860 there likely would have been further divisions after that so that the U.S. would have become 3-4 tiny little countries.
WW2 would have had a much different outcome...

Too much of a leap.
Lack of US involvement in WW1 means a different end to the war. If WW2 happens it isn't the WW2 we know of.
Lack of US continuity means no, or a less severe, embargo of Japan and little to no US power in Asia. This removes their motivation to go to war as they did.

 

[jon_berzerk]

if the promise of a republican form of government is broken

all bets are off

 

[JakeStarkey]

The US would have conquered the South: geo-political economics demanded it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

if the promise of a republican form of government is broken
all bets are off

That only applies to states in the union; secession means you leave the union and so it no loger applies.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The great American center will not allow the far right to threaten the Republic.

 

[jon_berzerk]

if the promise of a republican form of government is broken
all bets are off

That only applies to states in the union; secession means you leave the union and so it no loger applies.

yes

breaking the promise is one of the reasons for secession

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, it is not, and we will not let the brain dead far right threaten the Republic.

 

[M14 Shooter]

if the promise of a republican form of government is broken
all bets are off

That only applies to states in the union; secession means you leave the union and so it no loger applies.

yes
breaking the promise is one of the reasons for secession

Um.... huh?

 

[jon_berzerk]

if the promise of a republican form of government is broken
all bets are off

That only applies to states in the union; secession means you leave the union and so it no loger applies.

yes
breaking the promise is one of the reasons for secession

Um.... huh?

when a constitutional republic breaks down that is

 

[bripat9643]

When you are a member of a club you have the right to leave whenever you wish. That's what the original 13 colonies did and that's what the confederate states did in 1861. Naturally the central authorities don't like it, but what moral argument can they muster to keep you bound.?

Ratifying the Constitution and agreeing to its laws is not joining a club.

A better analogy would be enlisting in the army.

I can't imagine a worse analogy than that. However, it is an exceedingly servile and authoritarian analogy that views the states as virtual slaves to a superior power. Thanks for revealing your mentality to the entire forum.

 

[bripat9643]

Secession in and of itself is not treason.

But the Southerners calling themselves secessionists were guilty of treason against the U.S.

Only if you change the definition of the term "treason:.

They took up arms against the United States.

wrong again. The Constitution says treason is to make war "on the states" as in the states of the union. It doesn't say anything about making war on the United States.

 

[Liminal]

The constitution gives an exact definition of treason. Levying war is one of them. Firing on federal facilities and troops was an act of war.

Secession is not making war.

Firing on federal facilities and troops is

Title of the topic?
Secession.
Its not treason..

It might not be treason, but it ain't legal either.

10th Amendment.
Nothing in the constitution prohibits secession; the right is retained by the state.

The rights of a state not delineated in the Constitution can only apply to the internal affairs of a state, not their relationship with other states.