NationStates Jolt Archive

no really ugly dresses, which she obviously violated

Ugly in your opinion maybe but I was at my gf's junior prom? I think I'd take that dress over some of the dresses some of the girls there were wearing.

Further Madison himself, depsite the claims, warns against the very Acts Lincoln took:


Interesting. Source please.....

Interesting. Source please.....

Constitutional Convention, 1788.

Virginia's Ratification Letter to the Constitutional Congress, June 1788.

Virginia's Ratification (http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_va.html)

Virginia's Ratification Letter to the Constitutional Congress, June 1788.

Virginia's Ratification (http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_va.html)

Just because its a letter doesn't mean a thing in all reality. They can say they do but that is like me telling you I will kill you if you don't obey me.

It is an interesting intellectual exercise to re-debate the merits of the secessionist arguments; not unlike arguing the merits of the American invasion of Mexico or imagining how history might have been changed if Archduke Franz Ferdinand had not taken a wrong turn and met an assassin’s bullet.

However, an interesting intellectual exercise is all it is.

What every secessionist apologist and Confederate dead-ender fails to recognize, in all their Constitutional arguments, is what modern day Middle East experts call “the facts on the ground.” They argue endlessly as if there had never been a civil war. Yet, of all the salient bits of information in this discussion, the most important is the war in which more than 3 million Americans fought, and over 600,000 men (2 percent of the U.S. population) died. The Civil War changed many things about the American social, economic, and political landscape. It also forever settled the question of whether or not states are entitled to leave the Union.

They unequivocally cannot.

This matter was settled by force of arms. Argue all day about whether or not this was right or if you agree or disagree, but the fact remains that some issues are decided by war. The American Civil War was not the first or last time great issues were resolved by force.

Was the U.S. correct in forcibly taking land from the Native Americas?

No.

Did the U.S. have a legal right to take Texas, California, New Mexico, and Arizona from Mexico?

No.

Did the U.S. have a Constitutional or internationally legal argument for occupying and annexing Hawaii?

No.

Is the United States going to give back any of that land?

No.

Whether you call it the War Between the States, the War Against Northern Aggression, the Second American Revolution, the Lost Cause, the War of the Rebellion, the Brothers’ War, the Late Unpleasantness, or as Walt Whitman called it, the War of Attempted Secession, it long ago settled the question of whether or not states are entitled to leave the nation. In the blood of 600,000 Americans is the answer written:

“One nation, undivided....”

“One nation, undivided, with liberty and justice for all.”

And yet, surely, that has to be one of the grandest lies ever spoken.

Liberty and justice for all... unless your idea of liberty was secession, under terms that justice endorsed.

No truer then, than it is today.

The power confided in me, will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion - no using of force against, or among the people anywhere.

Whatever one's views, legal, political, or moral about the Civil War or President Lincoln, it should be obvious that Lincoln was being dishonest here. He was suggesting that he would not resist secession, but would continue to tax the seceders and hold hostile military installations on their property - an absurdity. Before becoming President, Lincoln had been more honest. He simply said "we won't let you" secede. The truth is, the Southern states wanted to go in peace, but Lincoln "wouldn't let them."


The several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by compact, under the style and title of the Constitution of the United States, and of certain amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for general purposes, delegated to that government certain powers, reserving, each state to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void and of no effect.

On further note, and ironically, it was towards Jefferson's own hand, to which Lincoln argued against secession: Yet, Lincoln's own sophist arguments against secession, read as a point by point checklist in violation of the principle secession of the Colonies from Brittain in 1776.


He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected. . . He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone. . . He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us. For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world. For imposing Taxes on us without consent. For depriving us in many cases, of the right of Trial by Jury. For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coast, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny.

Under Lincoln's arguments; the people have no right to direct self government, or determination of their own government; but rather; are foreever bound to the union dispite its direction.

Ironically enough, in addition, the Articles of Confederation, which applied to the Nation prior to the formation of the present union in 1788, did not give the ability of the states to secede.


The Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state.

So, if one were to accept that states are inferior to the union they created: and unable to legally secede. One could argue, the secession from the AoC was illegal, and the US Constitution is illegal. Of course, no one would argue that, because untill Lincoln perverted every foundation of America in the 1860's, there was no question of the states as being able to hold absolute sovereignty, as the people wished.

Further interestingly enough, the U.S. Constitution does not, even to the extend of the AoC's level, mention secession or permanancy of the Union. It is neither given nor forbidden (which would place it in an enumeration of Amendment X), and thereby the power of secession rests, legally in the hands of the states themselves. Arguments against any such placement than this, are absurd sophistries based on assumptions and the violation of powers and a violation of contract, that is the U.S. Constitution.

Lincoln, in fact, refuse to deal with the ninth and tenth amendments in his arguments against secession. And in fact, in his own words, replaces them, with a new "amendment" which is not written. That is, that States have no rights except that which the constitution grants them. (This is the inverse of the 9th and 10th.... Since it limits the powers of the federal government to specific enumeration; granting all other powers to the states and people).

Again, James Madison:

A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.

Madison argued this, to the destruction of a Constitutional Provision stating:

"to call forth the force of the union against any member of the union, failing to fulfil its duty under the articles thereof."

(Note, this is EXACTLY what Lincoln did...) Lincoln gets little true help from a complete over-view of Madisons own arguments and writtings.

Further, as part of Lincoln's arguments against secession:

If a State may lawfully go out of the Union, having done so, it may also discard the republican form of government; so that to prevent its going out, is an indispensable means, to the end, of maintaining the guaranty mentioned; and when an end is lawful and obligatory, the indispensable means to it, are also lawful, and obligatory.

Of course, in trying this, he was acting against the Republican form of government of the several states, to invade them (to which no provision is alloted), and remove their republican form of government, and implace it with a military dictatorship. Ol' [Hypocritical] Abe.

After the war, to escape domination by a military authority for perpetuality, the States were forced back into the union; either that, or become permanate Federal colonies of the Union, under a blanket of oppression that far exceeds that of which the Colonies revolted from Brittain in 1776.

Lincoln replaced the Free Republic, with an imperialism that still exists to this day. It was the formation of this new Imperialist Union, which fought wars with the Native American Nations, ursurped their lands... Completely contrary to how the CSA dealt with things, treating the same as Independant Self-Governing nations, to which alliances were created.

The Doctrine of secession is built upon the inalienable rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence. The DoI is the justification for the creation of the Articles of Confederation, and the subsequent secession of the several states from the AoC, as well as the creation of the U.S. Constitution. Without the DoI, the Constitution posesses no validity. Since it all flows from the inherant rights expressed in the Declaration.

In conclusion: Did the states have the right and authority to legally secede from the union? Yes, they did.

Was Lincoln's violation of powers justified to maintain the union at the expense of the Republics? No, it wasn't.

Lincoln acted illegally. Despite other claims. He was a tyrant, he re-wrote and re-wove the very fabric of the United States. And indeed, it was Lincoln who destroyed the United States, in favor of a Federal Imperialism.

Just because its a letter doesn't mean a thing in all reality. They can say they do but that is like me telling you I will kill you if you don't obey me.

Wrongo, bub. It was not a condition of ratification: Had it been such, it would have been turned down by the Convention. Since they would not accept conditional ratification. It was an accepted right of the sovereign states.

The right of the states and the people to the determination of their own form of government is inalienable, you imperialist, anti-american, prick.

Wrongo, bub. It was not a condition of ratification: Had it been such, it would have been turned down by the Convention. Since they would not accept conditional ratification. It was an accepted right of the sovereign states.

The right of the states and the people to the determination of their own form of government is inalienable, you imperialist, anti-american, prick.

But as someone said earlier, they don't have that right so in reality, they never had that right to begin with.

And I am not an imperialist nor an anti-american break you numbskull!

The right of the states and the people to the determination of their own form of government is inalienable, you imperialist, anti-american, prick.

Oh come on.

Can't you argue without insults and threats of violence?

Even if you are right(I am still waiting for an official intrepretation), it does not matter. It was decided 139 years ago.

E. Pluribus Unam.

If you even remember anymore.....

They had the right. Merely because someone illegally usurped authority to end it. Does not remove the right. The Right has never been forbidden to the states. EVER.

No matter what your incompitent, non-functional mind can invent. No where in the US Constitution, are the states prevented from seceding from the Constitution. (Note the Constitution explicitly hands all powers not delegated to the US Government, to the states respectively. Secession is a power of the state. If not, please indicate where in the US Constitution, the Federal Government was given power over secession.

The simple fact is, you cannot.

Secession is a power of the states to leave the union, if the same becomes abusive and usurps powers it was not enumerated with.

Virginia exercized her sovereign duty to her people, to protect them from an evil, oppressive, tyrannical government, led by Ol' "Hypocritical" Abe.

The unfortuneate thing is, the second war of independence was lost, and now, forever, untill such time as the despotic federal government is destroyed, the states are subservient to the federal tyrany.

SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS

Oh come on.

Can't you argue without insults and threats of violence?

Even if you are right(I am still waiting for an official intrepretation), it does not matter. It was decided 139 years ago.

E. Pluribus Unam.

If you even remember anymore.....

I remember, why don't you learn how to spell it, you fucktarded imperialst moron.

SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS

Again, James Madison:

Madison argued this, to the destruction of a Constitutional Provision stating:

"to call forth the force of the union against any member of the union, failing to fulfil its duty under the articles thereof."



You like quoting Madison for my benefit right?

"Beyond Montpelier, Madison turned his attention to a variety of public issues. A firm believer in the value of public education,(footnote 44) he joined Jefferson in his retirement project to establish the University of Virginia, becoming its second rector on Jefferson's death in 1826. On the political front, the former president waged a rear-guard struggle, in letters and in the press, against the rise of doctrines of nullification and secession, some of whose adherents cited his 1798 Virginia Resolutions and Report of 1800 as justifications.(footnote 45) He also joined the American Colonization Society, serving as its president in 1833 to indicate his support for compensated emancipation to provide for the end of slavery before disputes over its future could destroy the nation. His final advice to his country was that it must preserve the Union at all costs,(footnote 46) and his last piece of political writing, published in 1835, was an allegorical essay "Jonathan and Mary Bull," an extended plea for a temperate compromise over slavery to preserve the republic he had done so much to create.47 Having then reached the age of eighty-five, Madison died at Montpelier on 28 June 1836, the last of the Founding Fathers."

http://memory.loc.gov/mss/mjm_best/mjmessay/mjmessay.html

I remember, why don't you learn how to spell it, you fucktarded imperialst moron.

SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS

My my what an angry little man you are.

Keep to your tactics. You will convince nobody to your cause except other little angry "the south will rise again" types.

I remember, why don't you learn how to spell it, you fucktarded imperialst moron.

SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS


:eek: wow

My my what an angry little man you are.

Keep to your tactics. You will convince nobody to your cause except other little angry "the south will rise again" types.

Boy he likes to insult when he's losing doesn't he?

Well, is she racist, a war was fought and won to ban that flag. :confused:

Well, is she racist, a war was fought and won to ban that flag. :confused:

WRONG!! A war was fought to preserve the union. It was not fought to ban that flag.

Boy he likes to insult when he's losing doesn't he?

You find all types on the net. I think I have argued with him before. I vaguely remember another person that argued the same way.

Ahh well. Some people will never accept anything but their own viewpoints.

I can be labeled as such some times but at least I try to evaluate from time to time.

You find all types on the net. I think I have argued with him before. I vaguely remember another person that argued the same way.

Like the way you and I have argued against one another in the past but without the insult unless we both knew it was a friendly jibe.

Ahh well. Some people will never accept anything but their own viewpoints.

Yep. Accurate!

I can be labeled as such some times but at least I try to evaluate from time to time.

As do I

The Ultimate form of legitimacy to the Secession of Virginia, is the existance of the State of West Virginia.

If Virginia had a right to secede; then West Virginia had the power and right to secede from Virginia, and then become a state under the Constitution.

If Virginia did not have the right to secede, and secession was illegal. And Virginia was legally not a seperate state, but rather, a union state in rebellion, then West Virginia had no rights of secession, and its admitance to the Union is illegal under Article IV section 3 of the United States Constitution.

You can't have both. Dimwits.

While Lincoln and the Imperialist Union may have denied the right. In all legal operations they accepted it.

Of course, all of you union supporters and Lincoln-ites, are morons, with no consistency, and do not believe in any foundational american documents; your sole belief lies under the principle of "might makes right".

You are all imperialists.... Just admit it. That's all you are. Lincoln was an imperialst. He was right, because he killed people to make it right. He murdered and displaced, and occupied other nations for his own imperialistic goals, and you as well like doing the same thing.

Piss on the constitution; that's what you all do. You don't give a fuck about it, except where it serves your goals, just like Lincoln.

SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS

But as someone said earlier, they don't have that right so in reality, they never had that right to begin with.

And I am not an imperialist nor an anti-american break you numbskull!

Revisionist history does not equate logically with lack of rights at-the-time.

Oh, I know I can't win. Because all you imperialist ass-hole stone-deaf morons stick together.

The South had the legal right to secede. But not the power to remain so, unfortuneately.

None of you have negated the legality. Because the LEGALITY EXISTS AS AN INHERANT RIGHT. As much has been established. Since you cannot distract from its inherant right, you deny everything to pertain to that inherant right. But in such, you also effectively deny every possible legitimate support for your own view. As such, it is self-defeating, just like Lincoln's sophist arguments. And Madisons end in senility.

It is E Pluribus Unum, BTW, "Out of many, one"

It is also SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS, "Thus always to tyrants"

The same being the last words to pass through Lincoln's mind before the bullet followed. A memorial to the Commonwealth's Flag, of the dead dis-crowned king.

Prior to Lincoln, all government authority flowed from the people... Afterwards all people's right flowed from the Government. Lincoln destroyed everything american, and unique to this nation at its founding.

However, some of us are not yellow-bellied cowards, and we will keep fighting to restore the true america. To knock down the Federalist Imperialism and restore the Free Republic.

Maybe you don't understand it, no more than the red-coats understood the patriots of the revolutionary war. Doesn't mean we will bow to you. We will stand firm, and we would rather die, then surrender to your imperialism, or the king you elect.

http://www.stananapol.com/StateFlags/virginia.gif

Revisionist history does not equate logically with lack of rights at-the-time.

I'm not a revisionist history nut! The last time Ihad one of those, I ultimately destroyed with facts that she had no counter for. I hate revisionist history!

IOW. all of your arguments are:

Despite the fact the Colonies seceded from Brittian in 1776

and

Despite the fact the States seceded from the Articles of Confederation in 1788

and

Despite the fact that three states (Texas, Virginia and New York) explicitly outlined the rights of states to determination of their governments and possible secession in their ratification of the New Constitution (which does not mention secession anywhere)

and

Despite the fact that any right not specifically granted to the Federal government in the US Constitution is granted to the people and the states respectively (which would include secession).

---

States never had the right to secede, because Lincoln said so? And killed enough people to keep them from finally being such?

You people need a new definition of revisionism; because that is EXACTLY what you are doing.

States had the legal right to secede. Lincoln, like the imperialist pig he was, and like King George, refused recognition of that right, sent troops in to prevent that right, and over-lord the states to his beck and whim, but unlike King George, he won his war. And since he killed enough people, he was right.

I'd accept that, except, I actually believe in liberty and freedom... And I believe in the things my state fought for in 1776 and 1861... That is the freedom of people to self-determination and self-government.

Something none of you can claim.

And likely never will.

Because you do not believe in freedom.

You do not believe in Liberty.

You only believe in forceful coersion and might makes right.

As much has been proven by your own views.

The Ultimate form of legitimacy to the Secession of Virginia, is the existance of the State of West Virginia.

If Virginia had a right to secede; then West Virginia had the power and right to secede from Virginia, and then become a state under the Constitution.

If Virginia did not have the right to secede, and secession was illegal. And Virginia was legally not a seperate state, but rather, a union state in rebellion, then West Virginia had no rights of secession, and its admitance to the Union is illegal under Article IV section 3 of the United States Constitution.

You can't have both. Dimwits.


Well that question is left to a constitutional scholar. You have secession from the union but West Virginia didn't do that. They left Virginia but remained in the union.

My knowledge of West Virginia is limited. Was it hostile. Did the two come to terms with the seperation? If so then it's not a valid argument.


While Lincoln and the Imperialist Union may have denied the right. In all legal operations they accepted it.


The Confederacy was never recogonised as a nation so "imperialist" is wrongly used.


Of course, all of you union supporters and Lincoln-ites, are morons, with no consistency, and do not believe in any foundational american documents; your sole belief lies under the principle of "might makes right".


Well I don't know if I can be counted as a full Lincolnite. I tend to want to know the truth about history and not get caught up in simple opinions. It's a long process to find the truth if you even can. As Madison you liked to quote, reading the selected comments does make it sound like he believed secession was a right. Yet you read that he impressed on New England not to secede and then argued that people were misusing his comments and he was for the Union.....


You are all imperialists.... Just admit it.


Well if we were Coneliu and I would be for the war in Iraq and for perminant bases, yet we aren't.


That's all you are. Lincoln was an imperialst. He was right, because he killed people to make it right. He murdered and displaced, and occupied other nations for his own imperialistic goals, and you as well like doing the same thing.

Yada yada yada


Piss on the constitution; that's what you all do. You don't give a fuck about it, except where it serves your goals, just like Lincoln.

SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS

Actually we are trying to find what was meant versus was was implied.

The South Lost the war. Let it go.

And Madisons end in senility.


Ahh now you show your true colors.

A true revisionist of Southern history.

You quote Madison and then you find out you misquoted him so now he was senile. :rolleyes:

You had some interesting comments which actually peeked my curiousity to look into some stuff.

However, you lost some credibility with the insults and threats. Now you lost all credibility with making up stuff about Madison rather then admit it was a mistake.

You see that is the difference between me an you. I can eventually admit to being wrong.

Ahh well.

Good day to you.

The Ultimate form of legitimacy to the Secession of Virginia, is the existance of the State of West Virginia….

If Virginia did not have the right to secede, and secession was illegal. And Virginia was legally not a seperate state, but rather, a union state in rebellion, then West Virginia had no rights of secession, and its admitance to the Union is illegal under Article IV section 3 of the United States Constitution.

…Dimwits…

Lincoln was an imperialst….

No matter what your incompitent, non-functional mind can invent…. Virginia exercized her sovereign duty to her people, to protect them from an evil, oppressive, tyrannical government, led by Ol' "Hypocritical" Abe.

The unfortuneate thing is, the second war of independence was lost, and now, forever, untill such time as the despotic federal government is destroyed, the states are subservient to the federal tyrany.

The South had the legal right to secede. But not the power to remain so, unfortuneately.

None of you have negated the legality. Because the LEGALITY EXISTS AS AN INHERANT RIGHT. As much has been established. Since you cannot distract from its inherant right, you deny everything to pertain to that inherant right.

...why don't you learn how to spell....


Y r tha wurst spelers allways furst two comeplane abowt bayd speling?

IOW. all of your arguments are:

Despite the fact the Colonies seceded from Brittian in 1776

Which we did under the Declaration of Independence and suffered 8 years of war to achieve such independence.

Despite the fact the States seceded from the Articles of Confederation in 1788

Articles of Confederation? HAHAHA!!! It was suplanted by the US Constitution! You got the 2 mixed up.

Despite the fact that three states (Texas, Virginia and New York) explicitly outlined the rights of states to determination of their governments and possible secession in their ratification of the New Constitution (which does not mention secession anywhere)

Texas because of the annexation treaty when they became a state, they kept to the treaty thus, Texas then had a right to. Also, with the state of Texas, we can still legally divide it into 4 seperate states.

Despite the fact that any right not specifically granted to the Federal government in the US Constitution is granted to the people and the states respectively (which would include secession).

Again, ask a constitutional lawayer regarding this.


States never had the right to secede, because Lincoln said so? And killed enough people to keep them from finally being such?

Never said that buddy. He didn't recognize their right to seceed. Big difference. As for killing, how many did the South kill to try to keep their independence? Gotta look at both sides.

You people need a new definition of revisionism; because that is EXACTLY what you are doing.

No its not. We just know our history.

States had the legal right to secede. Lincoln, like the imperialist pig he was, and like King George, refused recognition of that right, sent troops in to prevent that right, and over-lord the states to his beck and whim, but unlike King George, he won his war. And since he killed enough people, he was right.

They never had the right to seceed. How was Lincoln imperialist when all he did was keep the Union as one? He wouldn't have bothered with a war if Fort Sumter wasn't fired on. We were defending ourselves from Southern Agression. That is the President's job. To defend the people. The South fired and we took the war to them as they took the war to us. Gettysburg, Shilo, Richmond, Atlanta, Nashville, Bull Run, Fort Sumter and on and on and on.

I'd accept that, except, I actually believe in liberty and freedom... And I believe in the things my state fought for in 1776 and 1861... That is the freedom of people to self-determination and self-government.

I do too! I believe that the Union should've been kept together and the south being children in not talking but running from the problems facing America. I blame the South for the start of the war and am glad that the South paid for it. If your going to start a war, make sure you have the means to win it.

Something none of you can claim.

Bull! Your very ignorant if you believe that!

And likely never will.

Care to place bets?

Because you do not believe in freedom.

I find this insulting since my dad is currently serving our country overseas! He also was in Bosnia, Kosovo, the 1st Gulf war. Care to take back this statement?

You do not believe in Liberty.

See above statement! Luckily, I'm a calm man right now or I'll call you on this.

You only believe in forceful coersion and might makes right.

Bull! No one forces anyone. When force is used, I shall fight back.

As much has been proven by your own views.

Back it up!

I'm not a revisionist history nut! The last time Ihad one of those, I ultimately destroyed with facts that she had no counter for. I hate revisionist history!

And yet, you would discount the legitimacy of secession, because of what happened AFTER it... letting the winners write the history.... Revisionist History.

Well if we were Coneliu and I would be for the war in Iraq and for perminant bases, yet we aren't.

All for the war but permanent bases, I'm not so sure about!

The South Lost the war. Let it go.

I agree but then, we'll have nothing to argue! LOL

And yet, you would discount the legitimacy of secession, because of what happened AFTER it... letting the winners write the history.... Revisionist History.

I never recognized the South's right to secede from the Union! I've always felt that! No state has that right. Besides, we wouldn't be having this arguement if the SOuth won the war that they started.

If you start the war, make sure you have the means to win it.

ALL history is revisionist history. The writing of history says as much about the writers as it does their subject.

And yet, you would discount the legitimacy of secession, because of what happened AFTER it... letting the winners write the history.... Revisionist History.

Ahh but the legitmacy has not been formally established. Madison was quoted to be for it and yet I found evidence to says otherwise.

But that is the fun of interpretation debates.

ALL history is revisionist history. The writing of history says as much about the writers as it does their subject.

*Holds up a coke in salute*

Yep! That is why its tough to get at the truth!

Y r tha wurst spelers allways furst two comeplane abowt bayd speling?

I down't ;)

They never had the right to seceed. How was Lincoln imperialist when all he did was keep the Union as one? He wouldn't have bothered with a war if Fort Sumter wasn't fired on. We were defending ourselves from Southern Agression.

I have to ask how.... how was Lincoln protecting the Union from 'Southern Aggression", by maintaining a troop presence in Sumter?

He wasn't - he was counting on Southern forces attacking, to provide him a thin veil of legitimacy.

And, okay - the South fired on Sumter... still, how is Lincoln protecting the Union from Southern Aggression? He maintained an illegal outpost in someone else's state... so, even if Sumter was wiped out, that doesn't affect ANY of the rest of the Union.

The South only dealt with Sumter - it was Lincoln that built it into a platform for a war.

ALL history is revisionist history. The writing of history says as much about the writers as it does their subject.

Hmmmm welll ahhh?

Can't argue that point!

Amen bradda! ;)

I have to ask how.... how was Lincoln protecting the Union from 'Southern Aggression", by maintaining a troop presence in Sumter?

Union Fort=Troops

Confederate/Rebel forces firing on fort=Agression

Thus South Agression=Civil War!

He wasn't - he was counting on Southern forces attacking, to provide him a thin veil of legitimacy.

How do you know this? Do you have evidence backing this up?

And, okay - the South fired on Sumter... still, how is Lincoln protecting the Union from Southern Aggression? He maintained an illegal outpost in someone else's state... so, even if Sumter was wiped out, that doesn't affect ANY of the rest of the Union.

Yep, fire on our troops, you'll get burned! Hence why you don't mess with us. Just ask the UK, Mexico, The south, Spain, Germany, Japan, Germany, Italy.

The South only dealt with Sumter - it was Lincoln that built it into a platform for a war.

The fired on a Union Fort which under international law is an act of war. Therefore, the Union was in full right to defend itself.

I have to ask how.... how was Lincoln protecting the Union from 'Southern Aggression", by maintaining a troop presence in Sumter?

He wasn't - he was counting on Southern forces attacking, to provide him a thin veil of legitimacy.

And, okay - the South fired on Sumter... still, how is Lincoln protecting the Union from Southern Aggression? He maintained an illegal outpost in someone else's state... so, even if Sumter was wiped out, that doesn't affect ANY of the rest of the Union.

The South only dealt with Sumter - it was Lincoln that built it into a platform for a war.

In politics and war you always need an excuse to rally the people.

What was the need to fire on Fort Sumter? How was it a threat? Anderson probably coun't have lasted.

The union went "nener nener nener" and the South went "What? I will show you!" and gave Lincoln his excuse.

How do you know this? Do you have evidence backing this up?


Actually I kind of think it's a valid claim. Both forts were crap. The cannon of the day could level both.

Actually I kind of think it's a valid claim. Both forts were crap. The cannon of the day could level both.

Be as it may, I want him to prove it! LOL

BTW:

Here's a good explaination of the Civil War from the causes and the war itself!

http://www.thehistorychannel.com/perl/print_book.pl?ID=80436

Union Fort=Troops

Confederate/Rebel forces firing on fort=Agression

Thus South Agression=Civil War!

The fired on a Union Fort which under international law is an act of war. Therefore, the Union was in full right to defend itself.

Occupying force in another nation's territory = Aggression/act of war.

South seceded from Union = war (not civil)

The Fort was illegally occupied, therefore, the Unionhas no right to 'defend itself', since no 'attack' on THEIR sovereign soil was made.

Occupying force in another nation's territory = Aggression/act of war.

South seceded from Union = war (not civil)

The Fort was illegally occupied, therefore, the Unionhas no right to 'defend itself', since no 'attack' on THEIR sovereign soil was made.

Problem: No other country recognised the confederacy as a nation.

Civil War.

Occupying force in another nation's territory = Aggression/act of war.

*sighs* I guess you don't know the first thing about politics after all.

South seceded from Union = war (not civil)

South secession=Not recognized! Boy sounds familiar in other parts of the world today doesn't it?

The Fort was illegally occupied, therefore, the Unionhas no right to 'defend itself', since no 'attack' on THEIR sovereign soil was made.

The fort was still Union Territory by the nature of the Flag above it therefor, under international law, it was still union territory. I think that Lincoln should've negotiated payments of rent to keep the fort but then again....why do that when you never recognized their right to secede in the first place.

Problem: No other country recognised the confederacy as a nation.

Civil War.

Thank You!

In politics and war you always need an excuse to rally the people.

What was the need to fire on Fort Sumter? How was it a threat? Anderson probably coun't have lasted.

The union went "nener nener nener" and the South went "What? I will show you!" and gave Lincoln his excuse.

And therein lies the problem.

He could have just said, "I don't want them bastards getting out, legally or no - let's go shoot them, lots".

Your last line is, unfortunately, a damning account... The Union thumbed their nose, and a few true-believers responded... and Lincoln made it into a war between the Union and the Confederacy.

And therein lies the problem.

He could have just said, "I don't want them bastards getting out, legally or no - let's go shoot them, lots".

Your last line is, unfortunately, a damning account... The Union thumbed their nose, and a few true-believers responded... and Lincoln made it into a war between the Union and the Confederacy.

Damning or not why did that have to respond? If the "imperialist" Lincoln was looking for an excuse to attack, why give it?

Armchair world politician time: If they delayed the fight for as long as possible, it could have given time for somebody to recognise the Confederacy.

Damning or not why did that have to respond? If the "imperialist" Lincoln was looking for an excuse to attack, why give it?

Armchair world politician time: If they delayed the fight for as long as possible, it could have given time for somebody to recognise the Confederacy.

Then it wouldn't have been a Civil war but an attack on a recognized country. Once one nation recognizes it, it does become sovereign under international law.

Besides, it was almost recognized thanks to the Trent Affair but luckily Prince Albert stepped in and the situation was resolved diplomatically.

Ok, let's say I accept defeat.

1. States are not able to legally secede from the Union.

2. So The U.S. Constitutiona is invalid, and we are still under the Articles of Confederation; The Present US Government is illegal, and I demand it be disbanded and reformed under the AoC immediately!

3. Oh wait. If that is true, again, that states cannot secede. The the AoC is illegal, as is the DoI, since we cannot legally secede from Brittain, we are still under the Brittish monarch. Therefore I demand we remove the US government, and appeal to brittain to instill a governor general over her colonies here, which had illegally rebelled against the Crown. And work on the establishment of parliament by the monarch.

Be as it may, I want him to prove it! LOL

BTW:

Here's a good explaination of the Civil War from the causes and the war itself!

http://www.thehistorychannel.com/perl/print_book.pl?ID=80436

Forgot to say thanks!

Ok, let's say I accept defeat.

1. States are not able to legally secede from the Union.

2. So The U.S. Constitutiona is invalid, and we are still under the Articles of Confederation; The Present US Government is illegal, and I demand it be disbanded and reformed under the AoC immediately!

3. Oh wait. If that is true, again, that states cannot secede. The the AoC is illegal, as is the DoI, since we cannot legally secede from Brittain, we are still under the Brittish monarch. Therefore I demand we remove the US government, and appeal to brittain to instill a governor general over her colonies here, which had illegally rebelled against the Crown. And work on the establishment of parliament by the monarch.

Yadayadayada.

Whatever. :rolleyes:

Yadayadayada.

Whatever. :rolleyes:

Case in point.

"Whatever"....

I should get you and Corn-hole's address so I can send you an appropriate gift.

Like a months supply of toilet paper, so you can wipe your noses.

At one point it was "We the people...."

Now it is "We the Federal Government"

And we have your types to thank. For destroying America.

Ok, let's say I accept defeat.

You should.

1. States are not able to legally secede from the Union.

Correct! They're not.

2. So The U.S. Constitutiona is invalid, and we are still under the Articles of Confederation; The Present US Government is illegal, and I demand it be disbanded and reformed under the AoC immediately!

Wrong! The US Constitution is very valid. The AoC was a joke hence why we have the US Constitution.

3. Oh wait. If that is true, again, that states cannot secede. The the AoC is illegal, as is the DoI, since we cannot legally secede from Brittain, we are still under the Brittish monarch. Therefore I demand we remove the US government, and appeal to brittain to instill a governor general over her colonies here, which had illegally rebelled against the Crown. And work on the establishment of parliament by the monarch.

Did you know we tried every possible means to stay in the British Empire? The King didn't care and we relunctantly declared independence. Something you probably forgot. Remember the Olive Branch Petition? 1775 or '76 I believe the year it was sent in. It was Ignored by the King. We had grounds then. The South had no grounds to secede. We wanted to form our own government here in America under British rule but King George the Third wouldn't allow it.

This debate is now getting more interesting.

Case in point.

"Whatever"....

I should get you and Corn-hole's address so I can send you an appropriate gift.

Like a months supply of toilet paper, so you can wipe your noses.

At one point it was "We the people...."

Now it is "We the Federal Government"

And we have your types to thank. For destroying America.

:rolleyes:

That's ok. We know you make things up to suit your argument.

Keep trying to offend though. It's actually funny.

I should get you and Corn-hole's address so I can send you an appropriate gift.

Why do you have to insult? In a debate, an insult would invalidate your entire arguement.

Like a months supply of toilet paper, so you can wipe your noses.

*checks his list of appropriate gifts*

Can't seem to find one for you.

At one point it was "We the people...."

Now it is "We the Federal Government"

It is still we the people. The government is answerable to the people. It is the people's job to make sure that it does as the people wants it. That is why we have elections.

And we have your types to thank. For destroying America.

And we have the freedom to call you names but alas, we're more civilized than most people and I will not degrade myself with name calling or insults. It is because of our freedom that you are able to say what you have been stating. Thank our military forces (My dad among them) for giving you that right.

Forgot to say thanks!

That's ok!

Your welcome!

Whereas,
the Federal Government has failed to accomplish the purposes of the compact of union between these States, in giving protection either to the persons of our people upon an exposed frontier, or to the property of our citizens; and, whereas, the action of the Northern States of the Union is violative of the compact between the States and the guarantees of the Constitution; and whereas the recent developments in Federal affairs, make it evident that the power of the Federal Government is sought to be made a weapon with which to strike down the interests and prosperity of the people of Texas and her Sister slaveholding States, instead of permitting it to be, as was intended, our shield against outrage and aggression:


Therefore,
Section 1
We, the People of the State of Texas, by Delegates in Convention assembled, do declare and ordain, that the Ordinance adopted by our Convention of Delegates, on the Fourth day of July, A.D. 1845, and afterwards ratified by us, under which the Republic of Texas was admitted into Union with other States and became a party to the compact styled "The Constitution of the United States of America" be, and is hereby repealed and annulled; That all the powers, which by said compact were delegated by Texas to the Federal Government, are revoked and resumed; That Texas is of right absolved from all restraints and obligations incurred by said compact, and is a separate Sovereign State, and that her citizens and people are absolved from all allegiance to the United States, or the Government thereof.

Whereas,
the Federal Government has failed to accomplish the purposes of the compact of union between these States, in giving protection either to the persons of our people upon an exposed frontier, or to the property of our citizens; and, whereas, the action of the Northern States of the Union is violative of the compact between the States and the guarantees of the Constitution; and whereas the recent developments in Federal affairs, make it evident that the power of the Federal Government is sought to be made a weapon with which to strike down the interests and prosperity of the people of Texas and her Sister slaveholding States, instead of permitting it to be, as was intended, our shield against outrage and aggression:


Therefore,
Section 1
We, the People of the State of Texas, by Delegates in Convention assembled, do declare and ordain, that the Ordinance adopted by our Convention of Delegates, on the Fourth day of July, A.D. 1845, and afterwards ratified by us, under which the Republic of Texas was admitted into Union with other States and became a party to the compact styled "The Constitution of the United States of America" be, and is hereby repealed and annulled; That all the powers, which by said compact were delegated by Texas to the Federal Government, are revoked and resumed; That Texas is of right absolved from all restraints and obligations incurred by said compact, and is a separate Sovereign State, and that her citizens and people are absolved from all allegiance to the United States, or the Government thereof.

That is nice that you can find primary source documents, but a document is not an argument. It is a piece of paper. In this case it is a piece of paper stating the Texas position on the legality of secession. The fact that they lost the war that decided that issue once and for all negates their piece of paper.