Why do liberals say secession is TREASON?

[gipper]

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.

So again in your mind, Lincoln was fully justified to invade all seceding states, causing the deaths of 850k Americans, and destruction of half the nation, because the SC militia fired on Ft. Sumter in which no one was killed.

Why are you so hateful and murderous? Or is it you are merely a brainwashed statist? Which one is it?

 

[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. The issue has been settled since the war. Confederate troops were given pardons on Christmas Day 1868.

So again in your mind, Lincoln was fully justified to invade all seceding states, causing the deaths of 850k Americans, and destruction of half the nation, because the SC militia fired on Ft. Sumter in which no one was killed.

Why are you so hateful and murderous? Or is it you are merely a brainwashed statist? Which one is it?

You mean 630,000 deaths.

 

[Camp]

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.

So again in your mind, Lincoln was fully justified to invade all seceding states, causing the deaths of 850k Americans, and destruction of half the nation, because the SC militia fired on Ft. Sumter in which no one was killed.

Why are you so hateful and murderous? Or is it you are merely a brainwashed statist? Which one is it?

Neither. Lincoln and the US did not invade the south. The US had every right to protect it's interest within it's borders. Ft. Sumter was federal land. The confederacy formed an alliance and hence whatever action was taken by a part of the confederacy represented all of the confederacy. When the confederacy formed and the Army that was within hours of rifle and cannon shot of the Capitol the US had every right to confront the aggressors at Manassas .
You are using the same argument used to start the war. The debate could not be settled back then because the southern states refused to follow it's agreements, the laws of the land and patriotism to the US. A war was fought for the decision to be made one way or another. The Union side won the war. Get over it. A separated United States was rejected as per the surrender agreement and a single one nation, indivisible one was accepted.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

And there wouldn't be a Jew left alive today.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Secession doesn't affect the other states. The idea that you can't quit the club is absurd and totalitarian. As one wise forum explained, if you can't leave the union, then it's no longer a union. It's a prison.

The reason Lincoln cult members can't accept the principle of secession is that fundamentally their outlook on government is totalitarian. They believe that we are all subjects of the government, and it is free to dispose of our lives and property as it sees fit. Their support of ACA is proof enough of that. Secession is fundamentally incompatible with such an outlook because secession is based on the principle that you are entitled to control your own destiny, even if it collides with the aims of the scumbags in Washington. Secession means you are not government property, and totalitarians can allow such an idea to become acceptable.

 

[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.

And there wouldn't be a Jew left alive today.

Why would there be no Jews if WW II never happened?

The USA has been a major destabilizing force in world politics. If anything caused WW II, it was the treaty of Versailles, and Woodrow Wilson gets most of the blame for that. U.S. entry into the war allowed the allies to impose an unjust peace on the central powers. The U.S.A was definitely not a force for good during the Wilson era. That's why after the war Americans rejected Wilson and everything he stood for, like the League of Nations.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

So again in your mind, Lincoln was fully justified to invade all seceding states, causing the deaths of 850k Americans, and destruction of half the nation, because the SC militia fired on Ft. Sumter in which no one was killed.

Why are you so hateful and murderous? Or is it you are merely a brainwashed statist? Which one is it?

He's a leftist and a Lincoln cult member. By definition, they are hateful and murderous. Who has murdered more people in this world than leftwing dictators?

 

[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. The issue has been settled since the war. Confederate troops were given pardons on Christmas Day 1868.

So again in your mind, Lincoln was fully justified to invade all seceding states, causing the deaths of 850k Americans, and destruction of half the nation, because the SC militia fired on Ft. Sumter in which no one was killed.

Why are you so hateful and murderous? Or is it you are merely a brainwashed statist? Which one is it?

You mean 630,000 deaths.

Latest estimates are that 850,000 people were killed during the war.

 

[Camp]

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.

And there wouldn't be a Jew left alive today.

Why would there be no Jews of WW II never happened?

The USA has been a major destabilizing force in world politics. If anything caused WW II, it was the treaty of Versailles, and Woodrow Wilson gets most of the blame for that. U.S. entry into the war allowed the allies to impose an unjust peace on the central powers. The U.S.A was definitely not a force for good during the Wilson era. That's why after the war Americans rejected Wilson and everything he stood for, like the League of Nations.

Keep fighting your for your lost cause.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Liberals argue against the right of secession because they don't know American history and because most of them reject America's founding principles anyway. If this were 1776, most liberals would be siding with the British.

 

[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.

And there wouldn't be a Jew left alive today.

Why would there be no Jews of WW II never happened?

The USA has been a major destabilizing force in world politics. If anything caused WW II, it was the treaty of Versailles, and Woodrow Wilson gets most of the blame for that. U.S. entry into the war allowed the allies to impose an unjust peace on the central powers. The U.S.A was definitely not a force for good during the Wilson era. That's why after the war Americans rejected Wilson and everything he stood for, like the League of Nations.

Keep fighting your for your lost cause.

You mean fighting for the truth is a lost cause?

How sad that you believe that.

 

[Liminal]

Liberals argue against the right of secession because they don't know American history and because most of them reject America's founding principles anyway. If this were 1776, most liberals would be siding with the British.

Secessionists are all full of shit, not one of them actually believes in any principle of secession. If they did they should have no problem with counties seceding from states.

 

[bripat9643]

Liberals argue against the right of secession because they don't know American history and because most of them reject America's founding principles anyway. If this were 1776, most liberals would be siding with the British.

Secessionists are all full of shit, not one of them actually believes in any principle of secession. If they did they should have no problem with counties seceding from states.

What makes you think I have a problem with that? I believe each individual property owner should have the right to secede from any level of government they choose to secede from.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

You are using the same argument used to start the war. The debate could not be settled back then because the southern states refused to follow it's agreements, the laws of the land and patriotism to the US.

What agreements are you talking about? Nothing in the constitution about secession one way or the other. But i'm sure the founding fathers took the right to secede for granted since they had just fought a war to secede from england. THINK

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Secession is also the ultimate example of states rights and a great way to keep the federal govt in check.

 

[mgh80]

I honestly think that if states want to leave that they should be able to. But let's not pretend like they didn't want to leave the United States. If the South won the Civil War and you live in the South/born/etc. you would NOT be an American. Let's not sugarcoat the situation.

 

[Billy000]

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.?

Lol

It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for the 13 colonies to succeed from the crown. it was, by definition, treason. A positive connotation you attach to the idea of revolution doesn't change the objective definition of the word treason.

Yes, you are a traitor.

 

[hipeter924]

Under the precedents set by the union victory during thr civil war, secession is not legal in the United States - unless by an act of Congress and Presidential approval.

A single state or group of states seceding without Federal approval would not recognized.

Finally, if a state interferes with Federal activity, then the US government would be required to respond as if against armed insurrectionists (when all other measures like cutting Federal funding, and negotiations have failed).

 

[IsaacNewton]

Texas vs White.

The Supreme Court made it clear the United States were insoluble. As are states themselves. Otherwise Houston could tell Texas to stick it as well and become an independent city-state, like Sparta.

 

[gipper]

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

Neither. Lincoln and the US did not invade the south. The US had every right to protect it's interest within it's borders. Ft. Sumter was federal land. The confederacy formed an alliance and hence whatever action was taken by a part of the confederacy represented all of the confederacy. When the confederacy formed and the Army that was within hours of rifle and cannon shot of the Capitol the US had every right to confront the aggressors at Manassas .
You are using the same argument used to start the war. The debate could not be settled back then because the southern states refused to follow it's agreements, the laws of the land and patriotism to the US. A war was fought for the decision to be made one way or another. The Union side won the war. Get over it. A separated United States was rejected as per the surrender agreement and a single one nation, indivisible one was accepted.

That statement proves you are completely delusional but then, one would have to completely delusional to believe Lincoln was great.

Secession is also the ultimate example of states rights and a great way to keep the federal govt in check.

...and that is why it must not be allowed.

We must have an UNCHECKED central government...so think the statists.