Tully Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Texas v White can't helpnyou at all, since it was
> decided well after the states had already seceded.
> Not to mention it is garbage. And if you don't
> like it, move.

Arguments like this clearly illustrate why being a Southerner has such negative connotations associated with it.

Go ahead Meeper, show me where the constitution prohibits secession. Lol. Meeper is an embodiment of why being a northerner has such negative connotations associated with it.

The Supreme Court ruled it as unconstitutional, enough said. It was all settled and enforceable over 100 years before your stupid ass was even born.

The Supreme Court said negroes did not have rights as citizens, snuff said. Right? You pathetic ignorant dumb ass. Now go ahead dipshit, show me where the constitution says secession is illegal. I'll wait. Moron.

Tully Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Supreme Court said negroes did not have rights
> as citizens, snuff said. Right?

See the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Ignoring reality is really a silly way of trying to prove your point.

Not gonna show me where the constitution prohibits secession, huh? Putting your ignorant unlettered head in the sand won't get you off the hook dipshit.

Tully Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not gonna show me where the constitution prohibits
> secession, huh?

Go read the Texas v. White decision, I already told you that. I don't have time to sit here and argue with some white-trash knucklehead.

Go read the constitution. And I told you, I don't have time to argue with some trailer trash moron.

You know you win when they cant come up with an original post, and just copy what you say, Meeper

I'm not too sure what Tully is trying to prove. The Confederate states "suck-seeded" (LoLz) from the United States to form their own country. That's kinda fact.

they fired on the United States like Al-Quida, and kinda just went from there.

and you act like that's all lickety-split fine. Ok, that's yr right (as an American, which is REALLY kinda funny, but neither here nor there) to believe what you want.

But those states were committing acts of TREASON against the United States at the time, cause they A) STARTED THEIR OWN COUNTRY and B) MADE WAR WITH THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Has nothing to do with the reasoning, or how anybody feels about slavery, states, rights, what have you

You come off sounding like a coward. Instead of being proud of the actions of the Confederacy, you want to hide behind the VERY SAME LAWS AND PROTECTIONS that the Confederacy betrayed when it turned against the US.

A TRUE CONFEDERATE PATRIOT WOULD ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT THEY DID and then debate the merits of why it was done, not hide behind the very same Constitution they betrayed

you prolly have Confederate soldiers rolling in their graves all up and down the coast right now LoLz

You know you got em Tully when they can't even identify where the constitution prohibits secession. Your right, it doesn't. And that they defend the lawless murderous tyrant Lincoln, who is basically a 19th century Josef Stalin, you know they are desperate. Plus the terrorist traitors like Washington, Jefferson are also given a free pass. Gott admit tho, they are good for a few deep belly laughs.

dude, if the Confederacy is a whole other country, then why do the leaders of the United States even matter to y'all

man, you make the Confederacy sound even weaker the more y'all go on in this thread!

"wahhh, we just gotta have the respect if true loyal Americans" is all I hear over and over from you types

I mean, there's nothing in the Constitution that says it's illegal to eff yr sister, so it that the reason why you think it's ok? Cause it's not, dude

WAKE UP AND JOIN US IN THE 21st Century

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> you want to hide behind the VERY SAME LAWS AND
> PROTECTIONS that the Confederacy betrayed when it
> turned against the US.

They're arguments are filled with much irony and LOLs.

Their heritage wound up on the wrong side of history and most of the unintelligent ones can't handle that. I'd be embarrassed about that too. To cope, they've invented this fantasyland defense-mechanism in which Lincoln was a mass murderer, slaves happily worked for free, blacks were racists, traitors are patriots and the Union were traitors, the sky is purple, etc. It's something that makes no sense to anyone but a tiny percentage of people living in the southeastern US.

Dude, like all you keep saying, over and over and over again is Waaaa Waaa Waaa, boo hoo boo hoo the Confederates wanted their own country. I mean really dude, stop raping your sister, stop sucking your thumb, pull your ignorant filthy ass out of the gutter, read the constitution and join the 21 st century. You're a pathetic representative of the unionist sentiment

true that!!

:)

Good post Tully. These guys are soooooo damn dumb. To cope with their ignorance they invent this fantasy land where Lincoln freed the slaves and saved the union, and they even deny, hilariously, that George Washington was a traitorous slave owning terrorist.stupid and illiterate as they are, They do make ya laugh tho.

:)

Meeper - good points, but I think they are trying to prove that secession was legal 150 years ago; before the war. Your examples are all AFTER the war, and they were passed or decided on to prevent anyone seceeding in the future.

I'm enjoying reading this back-and-forth! Except for Gordon Blvd.

'Gordon Blvd' wrote :
----------------------------
> "I've pointed out how there is no legal waY to break a contract you
> agree to unless the stipulations are in the contract at the onset,"

CARE TO DEFEND THIS STATEMENT YET, Gordo ?
DIDN'T THINK SO.
YOU MUST HAVE Googled THE SUBJECT AND
FOUND OUT WHAT A COMPLETE DUMBASS YOU ARE.

uvhay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> secession was legal 150 years ago;
> before the war. Your examples are all AFTER the
> war, and they were passed or decided on to prevent
> anyone seceeding in the future.

Incorrect. Texas v. White decided things that took place before, during, and after the war. Specifically, treasury bonds that southern states owned before they "seceded".

Meeper-

Agreed, but once again it's 'after the fact'. There was no Texas v. White in 1860, so there had been no court decision making secession illegal when they seceeded.

'Gordon Blvd' wrote :
----------------------------
> "I've pointed out how there is no legal waY to break a contract you
> agree to unless the stipulations are in the contract at the onset,"

if you dont understand the basic tenents of a simple lease agreement, I'm not gonna be able to explain Constitutional law to you

Why it matters what I think or say on the matter is beyond me

Damn, the Confederacy is weak as month-old coffee if what I think about her really matters - that's why y'all were the LOSERS, obviously

cause I hate traitors to America, so be it

I dont need love from Al-Quida, either

FUCK YOU AND YOUR MORONIC "LEASE AGREEMENT" DIP SHIT ANALOGY.

AS I PREVIOUSLY STATED :
*ANY* CONTRACT CAN BE VOIDED IF ONE PARTY BREAKS
IT'S BINDING *CONTRACTUAL* OBLIGATION.

but I love cracking up my co-workers

which is pretty easy, by simply being here and pissing off the hillbillies.

And I didnt say rednecks - cause rednecks at least are PROUD of who they are, and dont HIDE behind stuff like y'all seem to be doing

it is funny as shit that you want me to prove something in the Constitution that says "oh, you can shit all over this document all you want"

Most legal paperwork doesnt say "oh, you can break these rules whenever you feel like it". Some actually do, though. And THATS WHEN IT"S LEGAL TO DO SO - WHEN IT ACTUALLY SAYS THAT.

The real question is: "show me in the US Constitution where it says secession is a legal recourse of the states who agree to become a part of the United States"

that's the common sense approach - but since y'all seem to only see it backwards (all hillbilly backwards LoLz), that way of thinking (we grown ups call it LOGIC) seems to escape you.

but hey, yr cracking me up, so I guess that's worth something :)

the Southern states had representation in Congress, and nobody but them ABANDONED the Constitutional rights given to them, BUT THEM!


this is HILARIOUS!!!!!

You have a very childish and non-sensical approach, Gordon. You are making less and less sense. You are repeatedly asked to prove a point you made, and you're not doing it.

i dont have to prove anything

in case you havent noticed,

the Civil War ended over 150 years ago

nobody invovled in it actually gives a fuck what I think

and even though I proved my points I made last night, y'all just ignore it and gloss over the reality of them

I'm being very childish and nonsensical so I can communicate with those who are on this thread :)

speaking in a mature way would make their heads hurt

Seriously, why do you care what I have to say anyways? I know the Confederate States of America and her supporters were traitors to the United States. I know this cause the states that were the Confederate States of America were the VERY SAME STATES that agreed to the Constitution.

So if you are proud of the Confederacy, that's fine, that's yr business. The United States of America is such an EXCELLENT COUNTRY, that we wont hang you for the traitors you are. That's just one of the things about the US that make it Number 1

:)

There you go again. No one is making the argument that they don't love the USA.

they do if the support the Confederacy - a nation that DECLARED WAR on the USA

google Fort Sumter if you dont know what I'm talking about...............

man, y'all really dont know yr history, do you? o_0

reminds me of that mentality wife beaters have - they will attack their women, but still claim they love them

I think someone as incoherent as you and with the spelling and punctuation skills of an eight year old should not be judging others as ignorant.

Gordon - your analogies continue to baffle. You compare the invasion of sovereign Virginia soil to an apartment lease and battered women?

I think the Civil War was most like an ice cream cone on a hot day: first it starts to melt and then you get chocolate on your hands. And THAT is why secession is illegal.

How was that?

HATE GORDON BLVD...what a child.

the following is GORDON BLVD at his finest moment....



Re: Happy 150th birthday, Confederate Flag
Posted by: Gordon Blvd ()
Date: March 22, 2011 09:04AM

Posted by: formerhick76 ()
Date: March 22, 2011 08:02AM

Can a government that maintains slavery and racial inequality by force of arms be truly small?

only their penises

@ Jimmy James - I'm honoured to have yr hate, sir - Yr mom said the same thing to me last night LoLz

@ loser - Re: Happy 150th birthday, Confederate Flag
Posted by: Gordon Blvd = BRAINDEAD NIGGER ()
Date: March 21, 2011 11:18PM

um, I love how you think I'm black - now That's pretty hilarious

"Sovereign" Virginia agreed to the Constitution - and backed out of it like a buncha cowards - hence the invasion.

but I like yr ice cream analogy cause yeah, at the end of the day, all you had was a big mess :)

the comment I made about wife beaters has nothing to do about the Civil War - that was directed to the mentality of those who claim to love somebody (or in this case something) that they CHOOSE to attack.

Nobody forced the Confederacy to "suck-seed" (LoLz) or start a war. They ahad legitimate representation in Congress, they choose to fight. And I'm not even arguing the what's, why's, etc. I'm just saying that to be loyal to a Country that declared war on the United States is an act of treason, being a traitor to the United States, plain and simple.

We over here are all kinda surprised at the fact ppl who are so allegedly proud of their country cant get over the fact that the someone from the Country they fought is calling them out on their treason - I mean, this WHOLE THREAD started by praising the flag of a nation that made war with the US so it's not like I'm making up stuff, y'know?

if y'all can hate someone just for how they feel, then that's pretty sad in and of itself

me, I'll hate you for actual actions - like declaring war on the US like Hitler or Jefferson Davis did , or attacking the United States like Al Quida or the Confederacy did

go ahead, waste time trying to explain how the Confederacy didnt actually have a war with the US. o_0

Gordon BLVD

we dont hate you because of the way you feel on this subject..
we hate you because you approach this so child like ...anyone past the fifth grade that still does "Yr mom said the same thing to me last night LoLz " type of jokes...is an idiot.

and most of us here are debating the legality of the civil war (wich is an interesting debate)...both sides make great arguments....im sick of you saying everyone who argues for the confederacy is all traitors....these people simply believe that the south had a right to secede(AT THAT TIME)...i believe the south had that right...however im not going to argue it here, because im dealing with you, GORDON BLVD, and your response will be something totally irrelevant or about my mom."LOLz"..

also none of us are saying we support slavery or secession from the United States in THIS DAY AND AGE....we are simply saying AT THAT TIME in history it made sense for the Southern states to secede..or as you would like to call it "suck-seed..Lolz"..

life was different in the 19th century..politics were different...the country was so much younger....slavery existed since the beginning of time, but the times were changing....industrialization vs plantation system....old way of life clashing with the new way of life....the people back then were more loyal to their state rather than their country...it was a different way of life....you have to put that into perspective...

I (personally) side with the confederates' belief that they had the right to succeed and fend for their rights/way of life....but the north had well intentions and preserving the union was justifiable. both sides make good arguments....but to each their own....

also please learn to spell....and since you are such a patriot...you should learn that the united states was attacked by al-Qaeda...not Al Quida.....


Thanks,

Jimmy James

OMG

if you care enough about Al-coo-coo to demand I spell their name right

then you need a foot up yr ass, bro

'nuff said

p.s debating the legality of a past war is kinda stupid - both sides committed attrocities and a lotta ppl died

but that has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING I've said.

All I said is that the act of starting a new country and declaring war on the US is an act of treason, and traitors

then everyone started getting all butthurt, defending the Confederacy like the act of Treason is comparable to violating HOV rules or something

and still, nobody ever pointed out one thing that other dude asked about how the Feds infringed on the rights of the Southern states before they decided to abandon the US and turn traitor

no hate here, other than towards those loyal to someone who attacks the US, that's all

be it the Confederacy or Al-Crackheads

GORDON, i never understand what the fuck you are trying to say man. its funny cause the way you come across, i imagine you as some ignorant redneck...perhaps you are an ignorant Yankee redneck...i s'pose....how is debating the legality of a war "kinda stupid" ?? because it was so fucked up and a lot of people died, you rule it uninteresting topic to discuss and neglect it to debate?

GORDON, a history lesson for you.. READ THE FOLLOWING....i hope this clears up everything for the rest of you too.


Following the Declaration of Independence, each colony established by law the legitimacy of its own sovereignty as a state. Each one drew up, voted upon, and then ratified its own state constitution, which declared and defined its sovereignty as a state. Realizing that they could not survive upon the world stage as thirteen individual sovereign nations, the states then joined together formally into a confederation of states, but only for the purposes of negotiating treaties, waging war, and regulating foreign commerce. For those specific purposes the thirteen states adopted the Articles of Confederation in 1781, thus creating the United States of America. The Articles of Confederation spelled out clearly where the real power lay. Article II said, “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.” The Article also prohibited the secession of any member state (“the union shall be perpetual,” Article XIII) unless all of the states agreed to dissolve the Articles.!!!!!

dun dun dun!

Six years later!, the Constitutional Convention was convened in Philadelphia, supposedly to overhaul the Articles. The delegates in Philadelphia decided to scrap the Articles and to propose to the states a different charter—the United States Constitution. Its purpose was to RETAIN the Sovereignty of the States but to delegate to the United States government a few more powers than the Articles had granted it. One MAJOR difference between the two charters was that the Constitution made NO MENTION of “perpetual union,” and it did not contain any prohibition against the secession of states from the union!!!!! The point was raised in the convention: Should there be a “perpetual union” clause in the Constitution? The delegates voted it down, and the states were left free to secede under the Constitution.

Some people like GORDON BLVD see the Confederates as traitors to their nation because many Confederate leaders swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States when joining the United States Army. However, at that time people were citizens of individual states that were members of the United States, so that when a state seceded, the citizens of that state were no longer affiliated with the national government. Remember, the Constitution did not create an all-powerful national democracy, but rather a confederation of sovereign states. The existence of the Electoral College, the Bill of Rights, and the United States Senate clearly shows this, and although it is frequently ignored, the 10th Amendment specifically states that the rights not given to the federal government are the rights of the states and of the people. But if states do not have the right to secede, they have no rights at all. Lincoln’s war destroyed the government of our founding fathers by the “might makes right” method, a method the Republicans used to quash Confederates and loyal Democrats alike.

After the war, Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederacy, was arrested and placed in prison prior to a trial. The trial was never held, because the chief justice of the Supreme Court, Mr. Salmon Portland Chase, informed President Andrew Johnson that if Davis were placed on trial for treason the United States would lose the case because nothing in the Constitution forbids secession. That is why no trial of Jefferson Davis was held, despite the fact that he wanted one.

So was secession treason? The answer is clearly No.

if you want to ignore the FACTS

Rule 3.3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Just cause they didnt go thru the motions (geez, maybe it had more to do with the fact they didnt want another Civil War over it) doesnt mean he didnt do the acts.

But per yr own words:

"many Confederate leaders swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States when joining the United States Army. However, at that time people were citizens of individual states that were members of the United States, so that when a state seceded, the citizens of that state were no longer affiliated with the national government."

which means they were attacking the United States of America, the VERY SAME UNITED STATES OF AMERICA THEIR STATES DECLARED WAR ON. If their states agreed to the Constitution, then left it - that would be one thing - but THEY DECLARED WAR AND SET UP THEIR OWN NATION, CONSTITUTION, ARMY, etc. and THAT'S what makes them traitors


I mean, treason is one of the few laws mentions specifically in the Constitution - still unsure why those who'd pledge Allegiance to another country would try and hide behind the US Constitution, but whatevers - that's what makes it so awesome - it still will protect you LoLz

Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.

'Gordon Blvd' wrote :
-------------------------------------------
> "Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as
> "...[a]...citizen's actions ,

SOVERIEGN STATES ARE NOT "[a] citizen"

> "to help a foreign government overthrow"

SOVERIEGN STATES ARE ALSO NOT A "FOREIGN GOVERNMENT"

> "make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]."
> In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt
> or conspire to overthrow the government,

WELL THEY WEREN'T TRYING TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT,
THEY WERE DEMANDING THEIR RIGHT TO BE TREATED FAIRLY.

> "even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour."

USING THIS DEFINITION TO BACK UP YOUR FRIVOLOUS CLAIM JUST REAFFIRMS MY ORIGINAL SUSPICIONS OF YOU BEING BORDERLINE RETARDED.

"WELL THEY WEREN'T TRYING TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT,
THEY WERE DEMANDING THEIR RIGHT TO BE TREATED FAIRLY. "

treated fairly from what, dude?

how were they being treated unfairly?

they had the SAME Congressional representation

all the other states had

before they decided to become traitors

'Gordon Blvd' wrote :
------------------------------------
> "which means they were attacking the United States of America,
> the VERY SAME UNITED STATES OF AMERICA THEIR STATES DECLARED WAR ON."

NO ASSWIPE, IT MEANS THEY WERE DEFENDING THEIR RIGHT TO NOT
BE GOVERNED BY A TOTALITARIAN DICTATORSHIP.

> "If their states agreed to the Constitution, then left it
> - that would be one thing - but THEY DECLARED WAR

WAR HAD TO BE DECLARED BECAUSE THE NORTH WAS VIOLATING THEIR CIVIL LIBERTIES.

> SET UP THEIR OWN NATION, CONSTITUTION, ARMY, etc.

THE ALTENATIVE WAS BEING GOVERNED BY A CORRUPT TOTALITARIAN STYLE GOV.

> "and THAT'S what makes them traitors"

WRONG AGAIN ASSWIPE, THAT'S WHAT MAKES THEM SECCESSIONIST.
AND THAT IS WHY THE FOUNDING FATHERS INCLUDED THE RIGHT TO MILITIA TO KEEP THE GOVERNMENT AND IT'S MILITARY IN CHECK IN THE EVENT OF CORRUPTION.

> "how were they being treated unfairly?"

BY NOT BEING ALLOWED TO DECIDE WHAT IS LEGAL IN THEIR STATE AND
BEING FORCED TO FORFEIT THEIR PROPERTY THAT WAS FAIRLY PURCHASED, DUDE.

gordon, gordon, gordon....

on my last post, i dont think i could have made it any clearer...

only you could read my last post and distort what i said and come back with an invalid argument....

you clearly are the weakest link,
goodbye.

BY NOT BEING ALLOWED TO DECIDE WHAT IS LEGAL IN THEIR STATE AND
BEING FORCED TO FORFEIT THEIR PROPERTY THAT WAS FAIRLY PURCHASED, DUDE.

and how and where was that happening from the Federal Govt before the Civil War?

cause in case you didnt notice, slavery was legal in the United States until AFTER the Civil War

@ dvlB nodroG (it's so awesome I've gotten you to make a name like that LoLz)
DECLARING WAR ON THE UNITED STATES, setting up their own Constitution, Army, etc, THAT'S what makes them traitors!

As stated over and over (something these hillbillies seem to like to ignore) the Southern states have EQUAL REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS, same as every other state

They just choose to abandon the United States cause things were going there way, kinda like a buncha spoiled-ass cry babys

It is HILARIOUS that the same ppl who are defending the Confederacy to me, are doing so by claiming ownershipe of the VERY SAME CONSTITUTION THEY BETRAYED!!!

hmmmmm, what's ownershipe? LoLz

it's gonna be funny to see how many of them decide that the Confederacy is legitimate, simply because I misspelled "ownership" in a blog

ROFLMAO!!!

This has been FUN - will catch you later after traffic

ttfn

'Gordon Blvd' wrote :
------------------------------------------
> "and how and where was that happening from
> the Federal Govt before the Civil War?"

WELL, IF THE SOUTHERN STATES FELT THEY WERE BEING TREARED FAIRLY
BY A JUST GOV., THEN THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO PROBLEMS RIGHT ?

SO OBVIOUSLY THAT IS "WHERE" IT WAS "HAPPENING FROM THE FEDERAL GOV."
WHAT A MORON YOU ARE.

GORDON,

you know i hate you...and i believe your rebuttals are worthless and lacking intellect....more like random blabbing and using "Lolz" too much because you think you are really comical...(you are not, by the way)

BUT...you bring up a great question

Gordon BLVD says---
"""and how and where was that happening from the Federal Govt before the Civil War?
cause in case you didnt notice, slavery was legal in the United States until AFTER the Civil War """

let me explain (this also answers GORDON BLVD's idea that the south had equal representation in Congress..)

Correct, slavery was legal until after the civil war..in fact the civil war wasn't fought because Lincoln wanted to end slavery all together in the good ol USofA...he wanted to LIMIT slavery....When new territories became available in the West the South wanted to expand and use slavery in the newly acquired territories. But the North opposed this and wanted to stop the extension of slavery into new territories. The North wanted to limit the number of slave states in the Union. But many Southerners felt that a government dominated by free states could endanger existing slaveholdings(also here is where balance of power would be disrupted if all future states were non slave owning states, then the south would be at a disadvantage in govt). The South wanted to protect their states right... when lincoln was elected, the South felt that expansionism was being threatened, and because expansion was vital to the survival of slavery they also felt their way of life was being threatened. Because slavery was such an important part of Southern society, the South felt that they could not survive without it. Now they felt there was nothing more they could do. They were convinced that they should make a bid for independence by succeeding rather then face political encirclement!!!


well again, i did my best to explain this to you, ya knuckle head.
also i dont hate you...i just dont really like you...hate is such a strong word ya know LOlz.....im sure ur gonna come back at me saying somthing like"treason! spoiled ass cry baby confederate traitors!" but come on dude...i already explained to you that the CSA's secession from the union was clearly not treason...


THANKS,
JIMMY Mo'fuckim JAmes.

did someone really describe lincoln as a 19th century josef stalin? REALLY?!
i mean come on? are you kidding me?

Where does the Constitution prohibit secession? There's certainly no express prohibition, and it's difficult to argue that a prohibition is implicit in the text.

The strongest argument for the latter was made by Lincoln in his inaugural address. http://lincoln.thefreelibrary.com/Abraham-Lincolns-First-Inaugural-Address

He argued that the purpose of the United States Constitution was "to form a more perfect union" than the Articles of Confederation, which were explicitly perpetual ("the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual." AOC XIII); thus the Constitution too was perpetual.

The obvious counter to this, however, is that the elimination of the "perpetual" clause from the Constitution is clearly indicative of the framers' intention to obviate that provision.

In the same speech, Lincoln advances the further argument that even if the Constitution were a simple contract, it would require the agreement of all parties to rescind it, and therefore any ordinances of secession were "legally void".

But again, there is an obvious counter to this: in the case of a breach, a contract can be rescinded at will by the non-breaching party.

In August of 1856, BEFORE the Dred Scott decision, Lincoln had stated the following:

"Do you say that such restriction of slavery would be unconstitutional, and that some of the States would not submit to its enforcement?

I grant you that an unconstitutional act is not a law; but I do not ask and will not take your construction of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court of the United States is the tribunal to decide such a question, and we will submit to its decisions; and if you do also, there will be an end of the matter.

Will you? If not, who are the disunionists -- you or we?"

However, AFTER the Supreme Court rendered its decision, the northern states REFUSED to submit to it; northern legislatures passed laws that said no person in the state should be considered as property, and set free every slave who came into the state.

Therefore, by Lincoln's own word, the northern states - by refusing to submit to the decision of the Supreme Court - breached the Constitutional "contract," thus empowering the non-breaching southern states to rescind it.


TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Go read the Texas v. White decision, I already told you that.

I doubt that you've read the opinion.

As Justice Grier's dissent rightly observes, the question of secession was decided in battle, long before it reached the Supreme Court. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZD.html

Further, Justice Chase's summary conclusion as to the indissolubility of the Union, as noted by leading Constitutional scholar David Currie, "hardly seems an adequate treatment of an issue on which reasonable people had differed to the point of civil war" (David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The First Hundred Years, 1789-1888 (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1992), p. 312)

Specifically, Chase's brief argument rests primarily on the "perfect union" language of the Constitution, which arguments fails, as discussed above.

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> it's gonna be funny to see how many of them decide
> that the Confederacy is legitimate, simply because
> I misspelled "ownership" in a blog


Not half as funny as when someone calls this site a "blog."

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) was a significant case argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869. The case involved a claim by the Reconstruction government of Texas that United States bonds owned by Texas since 1850 had been illegally sold by the Confederate state legislature during the American Civil War. The state filed suit directly with the United States Supreme Court, which, under the United States Constitution, retains original jurisdiction on cases in which a state is a party.

In accepting jurisdiction, the court ruled that Texas had remained a state ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case. In deciding the merits of the bond issue, the court further held that the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null".

but that's only reality - nothing y'all are apparently capable of handling ROFLMAO

oh yes, Jimmy the CSA are as much traitors as Timothy McVeigh or ANYBODY born under the flag of the United States that attacks her

You can avoid the fact they attacked Fort Sumter the same was Major Hasan attacked Ft Hood.

Traitors all.................

funny how you like to forget that

YOU ARE, THE WEAKEST LINK.

> "In deciding the merits of the bond issue."

THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT, BECAUSE THE CASE WAS MOTIVATED BY MONEY
AND THE SUPREME COURT MAY HAVE BEEN COMPELLED TO SAY THAT AS
TO AVOID SOME KIND OF FINANCIAL TURMOIL.

BECAUSE THE CONSTITUION DEFINITELY DOES *NOT* FORBID SUCCESSION.

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) etc.


You're able to copy and paste Wikipedia's summary of the holding, without citation.

Congratulations.

Now read the case itself, and defend Chase's bootless "more perfect union" argument which undergirds the holding.

Re: Happy 150th birthday, Confederate Flag
Posted by: Gordon Blvd ()
Date: March 22, 2011 09:00PM

but that's only reality - nothing y'all are apparently capable of handling ROFLMAO




Uhhhh?!!?!?!??!!?!? you really shouldn't stop taking your medicine, boy.

let's see: Chase wrote that the original Union of the colonies had been made in reaction to some very real problems faced by the colonists. The first result of these circumstances was the creation of the Articles of Confederation which created a PERPETUAL UNION union between these states. The Constitution, when it was implemented, only STRENGTHENED and perfected this perpetual relationship.[14]

Chase wrote: The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "BE PERPETUAL." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION." IT IS DIFFICULT TO CONVEY THE IDEA OF INDISSOLUBLE UNITY MORE CLEARLY THAN BY THESE WORDS!!!!!. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?[15]

The dude said the Union was perfect, made CLEARLY in the Constitution.

Seems my medicine if doing fine

I'm on a drug, and it's called REALITY

LoLz

Chase ruled that the state's relationship with White and Chiles "was therefore treasonable and void."[17] Consequently, he ordered that the current state of Texas still retained ownership of the bonds and were entitled to either the return of the bonds or the payment of a cash equivalent from those parties who had successfully redeemed the bonds.[18]

heck, and this is the stuff you told me to read o_0

Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.[15]

Texas v White is an excellent pro-secessionist case. To wit:

1. The case was decided in 1869, nearly ten years after the various southern states had seceded. This means, of course, that at the time of secession, secession had not been considered by the courts and accordingly, it was, as of 1860 and 1861, perfectlly legal.

2. The decision actually endorses secession. In his decision, Chase acknowledges that the states seceded from the articles of confederation in order to establish the constitution. And this despite the fact that the articles of confederation, unlike the constitution, was explicitly declared to be a perpetual union.

3. Nowhere, and I mean nowhere, in the entirety of the decision, did Chase use language from the constitution which prohibits secession. That, of course, is because there is nothing, and I do mean nothing, in the constitution which prohibits secession.

meaning, succession is ILLEGAL, as written in the Constitution of the United States of America.

But again, even without that, TAKING UP ARMS AGAINST HER WHEN YOU WERE BORN UNDER HER FLAG IS TREASON ENOUGH!!

you can try and forget about that all you want, but that was kinda the ORIGINAL POINT OF THIS THREAD!

Today marks the 150th birthday of the original Stars & Bars.

Can't wait until September when Fairfax can celebrate the 150th of the battle flag. The marker at Main & Oak Streets, Farifax:

Inscription: During the First Battle of Manassas, amid the smoke of combat, troops found it difficult to distinguish between Union and Confederate flags. Generals P.G.T. Beauregard, Joseph E. Johnston and Quartermaster General William L. Cabell met near here in September 1861 and approved the first Confederate battle flag; a square red flag with blue diagonally crossed bars, and 12 stars. This pattern was adapted for use in other battle flags and was incorporated into the Confederate national flag in 1863. Beauregard's headquarters also hosted the 1 Oct. 1861 Fairfax Court House conference, during which Confederate President Davis and his generals plotted strategy.


And this is what makes America such a GREAT NATION! We allow these traitors to enjoy their Confederate flags, etc. We dont hang them like the dogs they are like they would in other countries! USA #1 :)

Tull, you need help - did you even read all that stuff above you?

Re: Happy 150th birthday, Confederate Flag
Posted by: Tully ()
Date: March 22, 2011 09:50PM

Texas v White is an excellent pro-secessionist case. To wit:

1. The case was decided in 1869, nearly ten years after the various southern states had seceded. This means, of course, that at the time of secession, secession had not been considered by the courts and accordingly, it was, as of 1860 and 1861, perfectlly legal.


Chase ruled that the state's relationship with White and Chiles "was therefore treasonable and void."[17] Consequently, he ordered that the current state of Texas still retained ownership of the bonds and were entitled to either the return of the bonds or the payment of a cash equivalent from those parties who had successfully redeemed the bonds.[18]

------------------------------------------------

2. The decision actually endorses secession. In his decision, Chase acknowledges that the states seceded from the articles of confederation in order to establish the constitution. And this despite the fact that the articles of confederation, unlike the constitution, was explicitly declared to be a perpetual union.

Chase wrote: The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "BE PERPETUAL." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION." IT IS DIFFICULT TO CONVEY THE IDEA OF INDISSOLUBLE UNITY MORE CLEARLY THAN BY THESE WORDS!!!!!. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?[15]
------------------------------------------

3. Nowhere, and I mean nowhere, in the entirety of the decision, did Chase use language from the constitution which prohibits secession. That, of course, is because there is nothing, and I do mean nothing, in the constitution which prohibits secession.

Chase wrote that the original Union of the colonies had been made in reaction to some very real problems faced by the colonists. The first result of these circumstances was the creation of the Articles of Confederation which created a PERPETUAL UNION union between these states. The Constitution, when it was implemented, only STRENGTHENED and perfected this perpetual relationship.[14]


kinda funny how that works out in REAL LIFE, eh?

you lose -3 internets

Gordon, you witless ignorant dipshit, would you like me to personally tutor you on constitutional law?

This thread clearly shows what is wrong with learning U.S. history from historical determinism textbooks. OTOH at least most of the posters here do know that there was a civil war.

Lol@Gordon. Hey moron, the states SECEDED from the articles of confederation to establish the constitution. And both Virginia and North Carolina explicitly reserved the tight to secede when they ratified. You fithy ignorant beast.

very good, Tully, now do you think you can read the legality of that?

Chase wrote: The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "BE PERPETUAL." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION." IT IS DIFFICULT TO CONVEY THE IDEA OF INDISSOLUBLE UNITY MORE CLEARLY THAN BY THESE WORDS!!!!!. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?[15]

and we are talking about the succession from the United States Constitution, NOT the Articles of Confederation.

Again, this argument is a pretty stupid red herring, cause fact of the matter is YOU FOUGHT A WAR AGAINST THE UNITED STATES

that's WAAAAAYYYYY more treason than just claiming succession

which is, of course, why you are trying to play that part of it off like it was nothing

what really is interesting is how ashamed these guys are to owe up to what the Confederacy did - I seriously thought I'd be running into ppl more proud of the Stars and Bars on this thread. I mean, the whole thing started as a "I wanna see the birthday of the Confederate Battle Flag" talk and now they are acting all butthurt over the fact they had a war with the US

I mean, it wasnt like it was just a road trip to Daytona without yr parents permission - it was a FUCKING WAR AGAINST THE UNITED STATES! You'd think they'd know that by now. I mean, I'm not making that up, am I? Antietam and Fort Donelson really did happen, y'know? Why not just admit it?

Gordon, you do amuse me, truly. Now then, do be good enough to show me two things please:

1. The language from the constitution which declares secession to be unlawful and prohibits or forbids it.

2. Chase's use of that language in his decision on Texas v White.

It should be very very easy to find it. Oh no wait, it will impossible, and I do mean impossible, to find it. But do go-ahead and try. Moron.

it's really no big deal - nobody's gonna come to yr house and hurt you just cause yr loyal to the Confederacy - I seriously dont know what the big deal is - but it's giving me (and a LOT of my co-workers today) many LoLz to see y'all try and act like attacking the US isnt an act of treason - but whatevers.

Re: Happy 150th birthday, Confederate Flag new
Posted by: Tully ()
Date: March 22, 2011 10:17PM

Gordon, you do amuse me, truly. Now then, do be good enough to show me two things please:

1. The language from the constitution which declares secession to be unlawful and prohibits or forbids it.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. ”

—United States Constitution, Preamble

--------------------------------------------

2. Chase's use of that language in his decision on Texas v White.

Chase wrote: The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "BE PERPETUAL." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION." IT IS DIFFICULT TO CONVEY THE IDEA OF INDISSOLUBLE UNITY MORE CLEARLY THAN BY THESE WORDS!!!!!. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?[15]

actually, it was pretty easy. Less than 2-3 minutes :)

ok, so 5 to post it LoLz

un·ion (ynyn)
n.
1.
a. The act of uniting or the state of being united.
b. A combination so formed, especially an alliance or confederation of people, parties, or political entities for mutual interest or benefit.

Gordon, my colleagues and I are having hysterical laughing fits at your foolish stupidity, clownish ignorance, and oafish ranting. Now then, how ya doing on finding that constitutional prohibition on secession. Any progress?? Rofl.

and since I seem to have to hold yr G-damn hand thru everything:

per·fect (pûrfkt)
adj.
1. Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind.
2. Being without defect or blemish: a perfect specimen.

Lol!! still can't find the words from the constitution which forbids secession huh? Gordon, please, we are howling with laughter. Anyway, I am still waiting, you witless, vulgar, unlettered boob.

so legally, they agreed that this "union" was "perfect" - and since the Feds at the time of the Civil War had NOT TAKEN ANYTHING AWAY FROM THE SOUTHERN STATES, then this whole argument about lawful succession is complete bullshit.

If slavery had been outlawed against their rights, maybe you'd have and argument - but that's not the case.

The Supreme Court decided that succession is illegal in Texas vs. White - so the matter is legally closed

The Southern states had legal recourse to address their greivences against the Feds - and CHOOSE instead to attack with force against the United States in an act of treason, plain and simple.

You can stick yr hand in yr ears and go "nyah nyah nyah, I cant hear you" now

LoLz

its a funny thing

GORDON

like 3 times today...ive broke down the rights and reasons for the CSA to secede...ive made it VERY CLEAR....backed up with true historical facts...everything you throw out there...i tell you where your wrong and show you why....NO MATTER WHAT I DO...you come back with 3-4 posts in a row...rambling and ranting about some other bizzarreeeeeeeee shit....sometimes i really dont know what you are trying to say, its like your talking to some imaginary poster the way you ramble on about things never mentioned...



your friend,
Jimmy James

looks like he beat me to it, folks :)

Gordon, you rascal, you are killing us! Now, please show me where the constitution forbids or prohibits secession.

GOR•DON [Goredone]

1. PERFECT EXAMPLE OF A TEXTBOOK RETARD.
2. ONE LACKING COMPLETE MENTAL COMPETANCY.

@Jimmy James

if the Constitution of the United States and Supreme Court decisions are "bizzarreeeeeeeee shit" to you, dude - then you are the one with the probs, not me o_0

Gordon, I am starting to feel sorry for you so I will help you out. Article 1, section 10, of the US Constitution enumerates specific acts and things that a state may not do. Look there, maybe secession is prohibited there. Oh no wait while the enumeration is detailed and lengthy, secession is not prohibited to the states. Sorry Gordon, I tried to help you.

whatever you say, Tully, whatever you say
in reality:

Section Ten sets LIMITS on states, reserving certain powers exclusively to the Congress. States are prohibited from coining money or making anything other than gold or silver coin legal tender for payment of debts and are prohibited from entering into treaties or alliances, although compacts with other states are allowed with the permission of Congress. States are also not permitted to lay duties, keep troops or warships in peacetime with Congressional approval, or engage in war unless actually invaded or in imminent danger. States also are barred from laying imposts or duties on imports or exports except for the fulfillment of state inspection laws, which may be revised by Congress, and any net revenue of such duties is remitted to the federal treasury. Finally, states, like congress, may not pass bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, nor grant any title of nobility.

but in his head:
Attachments:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or ENGAGE IN WAR, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

looks like South Carolina forgot that part of it LoLz

but whatvers, I gotta go shower

I've gotten dirty with all this pig-rasslin'

catch y'all tomorrow

go ahead and stick yr fingers in yr ears again, now :)

it's called treason.

Gordon, you are slower than many of my students, and far more vulgar, but at least you did attempt to follow as I directed you. But you couldn't find the prohibition against secession. Could you? Now get lost, you grotesque ignorant reprobate.

Treason!? Oh dear me. You mean like the sorta treason George Washington committed?

A RESPECTABLE MAN WOULD STFU WHEN AFTER NOT BEING ABLE TO SHOW WHERE THE CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS SUCESSION.

IT DOESN'T TAKE A JEANYISS TO FIGURE OUT THAT SUCESSION IS A NECESSARY
THING FOR A STATE TO PROTECT ITSELF FROM A CORRUPT AND UNJUST GOVERNMENT.

SO GO AHEAD AND TAKE THAT SHOWER GORDO, I'M SURE YOU REALLY STINK !

Section 10: Limits on the States

Clause 1: Contracts Clause
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Clause 2: Export Clause
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's [sic] inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

Clause 3: Compact Clause
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.


Seems like the Southern states violated several of these aspects of the Constitution.

Also Note: The South illegally attract the United States by firing the first shot at Fort Sumter. The South was not invaded nor in imminent danger.

attacked**

> "Also Note: The South illegally attract [I ASSUME YOU MEANT "ATTACKED"]
> the United States by firing the first shot at Fort Sumter.
> The South was not invaded nor in imminent danger.

THAT FORT WAS ON CONFEDERATE TERRITORY, DUMBHILLBILLY.
THE NORTH ASKED FOR A FIGHT AND GOT ONE.
NOT TO MENTION, THE UNION WAS TRYING TO CONTROL COMMERCE
THROUGH CHARLESTON HARBOR WITH THAT FORT.