True American Hero

[Closer]

That would be incorrect. SCOTUS Texas v. White (1869).

Bogus case that wasn't about secession. It was about a military Governor of Texas wanting to help himself to some $100,000 in bonds. Secession has never been 'unconstitutional', nor illegal, and in fact using force to keep a state in the Union was expressedly rejected on advice from James Madison at the Constitutional Convention, and a proposed clause specifically granting the Federal govt. the right to use force against a state was dismissed.

See Madison's diaries ...


http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/madison-the-writings-vol-3-1787#lf1356-03_head_007


.... and also the following:

Thursday May 311

"The other clauses giving powers necessary to preserve harmony among the States to negative all State laws contravening in the opinion of the Nat. Leg. the articles of union, down to the last clause, (the words “or any treaties subsisting under the authority of the Union,” being added after the words “contravening &c. the articles of the Union,” on motion of Dr. Franklin) were agreed to witht. debate or dissent.


The last clause of Resolution 6, authorizing an exertion of the force of the whole agst. a delinquent State came next into consideration.

Mr. Madison, observed that the more he reflected [56] on the use of force, the more he doubted, the practicability, the justice and the efficacy of it when applied to people collectively and not individually.—A union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force agst. 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. He hoped that such a system would be framed as might render this resource unnecessary, and moved that the clause be postponed. This motion was agreed to, nem. con.

The Committee then rose & the House Adjourned.1"


http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/farrand-the-records-of-the-federal-convention-of-1787-3vols


http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/farrand-the-records-of-the-federal-convention-of-1787-vol-1

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

Mr. E. Gerry thought this clause “ought to be expressed so as the people might not understand it to prevent their being alarmed”.✪


This idea rejected on account of its artifice, and because the system without such a declaration gave the government the means to secure itself."

FRIDAY, JUNE 1, 1787.

 

[ecofarm]

It was viewed as one.

So you're going with the "hurt feelings" defense. It's a common one.

 

[maxparrish]

Now the Union is the "oppresser"? In what way?

All peoples have a right of self-determination, to sever their bonds "institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. " (Dec. of Ind.)

It is not a question of whether or not you or I think they should have felt safe and happy in a political union with northern states, but when the union failed to accede to their declaration they were, by definition, the political oppressor.

Simply put, a people have a right to freely choose their sovereignty with no interference. The North conducted a war of subjection against Americans who no longer wished to be Americans, i.e.; oppression.

 

[Fledermaus]

All peoples have a right of self-determination, to sever their bonds "institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. " (Dec. of Ind.)

It is not a question of whether or not you or I think they should have felt safe and happy in a political union with northern states, but when the union failed to accede to their declaration they were, by definition, the political oppressor.

Simply put, a people have a right to freely choose their sovereignty with no interference. The North conducted a war of subjection against Americans who no longer wished to be Americans, i.e.; oppression.

Incorrect.

The South stated the war so they could oppress their fellow man. The North fought to preserve the Union.

 

[mrjurrs]

Bogus case that wasn't about secession. It was about a military Governor of Texas wanting to help himself to some $100,000 in bonds. Secession has never been 'unconstitutional', nor illegal, and in fact using force to keep a state in the Union was expressedly rejected on advice from James Madison at the Constitutional Convention, and a proposed clause specifically granting the Federal govt. the right to use force against a state was dismissed.

See Madison's diaries ...


Texas v White isn't about secession in the same way Roe v Wade isn't about abortion. Madison's diaries don't mean anything legally. The Fed papers were a marketing campaign for the Constitution and while some of them have been used to support Article 3 Branch findings, they have no force of law. The Constitutional Convention was an illegal gathering that was all about overturning the existing govt of the US. Friday June 1, 1787 is prior to September 17, 1787.

 

[Closer]

Texas v White isn't about secession in the same way Roe v Wade isn't about abortion. Madison's diaries don't mean anything legally. The Fed papers were a marketing campaign for the Constitution and while some of them have been used to support Article 3 Branch findings, they have no force of law. The Constitutional Convention was an illegal gathering that was all about overturning the existing govt of the US. Friday June 1, 1787 is prior to September 17, 1787.

So you're going to ignore facts and go with threatening to turn blue and stomping your feet until the PC Police can get here and make this thread a Safe Space again.Got it.

 

[Closer]

Incorrect.

The South stated the war so they could oppress their fellow man. The North fought to preserve the Union.

Rubbish. It started over Lincoln's wanting one. He liked his tariffs and massive Federal welfare programs for his state and the railroads.

 

[mrjurrs]

So you're going to ignore facts and go with threatening to turn blue and stomping your feet until the PC Police can get here and make this thread a Safe Space again.Got it.

What does that word salad mean?

Rubbish. It started over Lincoln's wanting one. He liked his tariffs and massive Federal welfare programs for his state and the railroads.

Come on, who was providing a huge source of revenue for that? Slaves.

 

[Fledermaus]

Rubbish. It started over Lincoln's wanting one. He liked his tariffs and massive Federal welfare programs for his state and the railroads.

Rubbish... The first shots were fired before Lincoln took office. Please fail again.

 

[dave8383]

Bogus case that wasn't about secession. It was about a military Governor of Texas wanting to help himself to some $100,000 in bonds. Secession has never been 'unconstitutional', nor illegal, and in fact using force to keep a state in the Union was expressedly rejected on advice from James Madison at the Constitutional Convention, and a proposed clause specifically granting the Federal govt. the right to use force against a state was dismissed.

See Madison's diaries ...


http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/madison-the-writings-vol-3-1787#lf1356-03_head_007


.... and also the following:

Thursday May 311

"The other clauses giving powers necessary to preserve harmony among the States to negative all State laws contravening in the opinion of the Nat. Leg. the articles of union, down to the last clause, (the words “or any treaties subsisting under the authority of the Union,” being added after the words “contravening &c. the articles of the Union,” on motion of Dr. Franklin) were agreed to witht. debate or dissent.


The last clause of Resolution 6, authorizing an exertion of the force of the whole agst. a delinquent State came next into consideration.

Mr. Madison, observed that the more he reflected [56] on the use of force, the more he doubted, the practicability, the justice and the efficacy of it when applied to people collectively and not individually.—A union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force agst. 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. He hoped that such a system would be framed as might render this resource unnecessary, and moved that the clause be postponed. This motion was agreed to, nem. con.

The Committee then rose & the House Adjourned.1"


http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/farrand-the-records-of-the-federal-convention-of-1787-3vols


http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/farrand-the-records-of-the-federal-convention-of-1787-vol-1

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

Mr. E. Gerry thought this clause “ought to be expressed so as the people might not understand it to prevent their being alarmed”.✪


This idea rejected on account of its artifice, and because the system without such a declaration gave the government the means to secure itself."

FRIDAY, JUNE 1, 1787.

I don't see anything there suggesting that force couldn't be used to counter, in reaction to, secession. What's written talks about what's appropriate while the state is still a member of the union.

 

[joko104]

If you like sociopaths. His war against civilians created a century of justified hatred.

The South and the slavery culture had to be destroyed. But the South fought far more honorably than the North. It could be argued that is why the South lost. If the war had started with Southern forces raiding North burning down everything thing in its path like became the North's tactic the South may have won.

 

[Fledermaus]

If you like sociopaths. His war against civilians created a century of justified hatred.

The South and the slavery culture had to be destroyed. But the South fought far more honorably than the North. It could be argued that is why the South lost. If the war had started with Southern forces raiding North burning down everything thing in its path like became the North's tactic the South may have won.

You mean his smashing of the Confederacy...

 

[beerftw]

The "justification" was similar to our justification of dropping the A-bombs on Japan. They clearly were defeated and yet refused to surrender and instead were pursuing a futile continuation of a horrible and pointless bloody war. They deserved what they got in spades.

The justification for nukes against japan was not honorable or heroic though, infact most anyone today with any sense of decency would call it horrific and a last resort rather than something to be proud of.

In the end the a-bomb saved more lives than it killed however how many today do you see praising it? Why so few praising it? well just because it came down to having to use them does not make it a good thing.

Sherman however was not in the same position, and he chose civilian targets as well instead of military targets in a campaign he was already winning. The a-bomb on the other hand was dropped because we were fighting an enemy who would fight until every last man woman and child was dead short of an act of god.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Yeah, just like the British

View attachment 67313520

It's not treason if you win. Then it's a revolution.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Slavers were immoral

That doesn't excuse Sherman's callous and barbaric crimes though.

We just thought it was funny.

 

[Phys251]

Incorrect... The first shots of the war preceeded Lincoln's term in office.

Not true. President Lincoln informed South Carolina of his intention to send a supply ship to the Union troops at Ft. Sumter. One thing led to the next, and then...boom.

 

[Phys251]

It's not treason if you win. Then it's a revolution.

"Treason doth not prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason."

 

[Fledermaus]

Not true. President Lincoln informed South Carolina of his intention to send a supply ship to the Union troops at Ft. Sumter. One thing led to the next, and then...boom.

The first attack on Federal shipping sent to replenish Ft. Sumter preceded Lincoln taking office.

It already went boom.

Before Lincoln.

 

[Tigerace117]

If you like sociopaths. His war against civilians created a century of justified hatred.

The South and the slavery culture had to be destroyed. But the South fought far more honorably than the North. It could be argued that is why the South lost. If the war had started with Southern forces raiding North burning down everything thing in its path like became the North's tactic the South may have won.

Someone’s never heard of Quantrill or Anderson. Or Jesse James, for that matter.

But expecting basic historical knowledge from anyone who suggests that the century of terrorism and unconstitutional rule in the south following the end of reconstruction was “justified”, and who thinks the Confederacy fought “honorably”, is one hell of a joke.

 

[bomberfox]

Because I don't care about demands from trolls. that's why. Any more questions you need to keep adsking in order to avoid having to rebut facts you don't like?

Lol. Op eds are not the same as quotes from the people themselves. I can provide direct quotes from the confederates demonstrating that they made it about slavery .

 

[joko104]

Someone’s never heard of Quantrill or Anderson. Or Jesse James, for that matter.

But expecting basic historical knowledge from anyone who suggests that the century of terrorism and unconstitutional rule in the south following the end of reconstruction was “justified”, and who thinks the Confederacy fought “honorably”, is one hell of a joke.

Try reading. I said the destruction of the South was justified and made no mention of reconstruction. The Southern military did fight honorably compared to the Northern military in the last stages of the war.

Quantrill and Jesse James were outlaws. I don't know anything about Anderson and a quick Wiki look-see gives no hint.

 

[bomberfox]

So you're going to ignore facts and go with threatening to turn blue and stomping your feet until the PC Police can get here and make this thread a Safe Space again.Got it.

Lol pc police is so 2014. Nobody buys that shit anymore.

 

[Tigerace117]

Try reading. I said the destruction of the South was justified and made no mention of reconstruction. The Southern military did fight honorably compared to the Northern military in the last stages of the war.

Quantrill and Jesse James were outlaws. I don't know anything about Anderson and a quick Wiki look-see gives no hint.

You squealed about “a century of justified hatred “. That “hatred” was due to having to give up slavery, produced Jim Crow, and there was absolutely nothing justified about it.

The Confederate military was the one who actively employed guerrillas—- led by psychopaths like Quantrill and Bloody Bill Anderson, and men like Jesse James serving under them. The atrocities they committed were a key part of southern strategy. Claiming they fought “honorably” is a bad joke.

 

[bomberfox]

The south wanted war and they knew about abolition before the war. They were not going to accept abolition even if an amendment to the constitution was passed.

 

[Fledermaus]

Try reading. I said the destruction of the South was justified and made no mention of reconstruction. The Southern military did fight honorably compared to the Northern military in the last stages of the war.

Quantrill and Jesse James were outlaws. I don't know anything about Anderson and a quick Wiki look-see gives no hint.

Bloody Bill Anderson.