[W:875] Trump administration 'looking at' suspending habeas corpus, Stephen Miller says (12 Viewers)

[Lees]

The Southern States were seceding. However they were also Rebelling against the Federal Government.

No, actually it was the Northern States that were rebelling as they rebelled against the Constitution. The South was not in rebellion against the Constitution. The South simply secede as it was not being given it's protections under the Constitution.

The North was the Traitor. Not the South.

Lees

 

[Lees]

Nothing about it was "found in the South's favor." Your post is a daydream. When Mississippi seceded from the Union Jefferson Davis abandoned his USA citizenship.

Technically, legally, Constitutionally, you can only try a citizen of the USA for treason and Davis was no longer a citizen of the USA when MS seceded. This is despite the secession being illegal and unconstitutional. Indeed, Davis had effectively renounced his citizenship by which action Davis was no longer a citizen of the USA.

Likewise RE Lee was indicted for treason by a grand jury in Richmond but never tried. Grant intervened on Lee's behalf.

The CSA constitution proclaimed their sovereignty as an independent nation. The residents of the CSA were not USA citizen insurrectionists who could be tried for treason. They were citizens of the self proclaimed Confederate States of America which the USA did not recognize de jure as a sovereign nation that did de facto exist as such.

SecWar Stanton had the right idea that never came to fruition in the Davis case which was to try Davis in a military tribunal. Four of eight accomplices in Lincoln's assassination who were tried by the military were hanged. By the neck. Until dead.

Except the North's claim was that the South never left the Union. Do you see? Probably not.

If the North's claim was that the South left the Union, then Lincoln had no authority delcaring slaves free in the South, with the Emancipation Proclamation.

And, if the North's claim was that the South left the Union, the supposed disposition in the Texas vs White case in 1869 does not stand, meaning Chase's words about secession is null and void.

You see? You will find that the North created a dog and pony show about secession. When they wanted the South out, they claimed they were out. But when they wanted the South in they claimed they were always in. It would make Ringling Bros. blush.

They had the chance to try Jeff Davis before a real court of law, not a military tribunal. They balked. Why? They feared he would be found not guilty. They feared the blame of 800,000 lives would lay at the feet of the North...as it should. Go away Jeff Davis, and we will pretend it never happened.

Lees

 

[Lees]

It's obvious that with Trump as Potus some people on the margin can believe they can pull off just about anything. So why not dig up this old zombie and get it walking again eh. Not.

Although there will be some MagaMorons who will pick up on this as dear to their rebel hearts and MagaMinds.

The South were the rebs and the South is still the base of it that by this century has fanned out north by northwest across states in the swarm of red counties. Indeed, the single party state of the CSA and its plantation system was fascism before there was fascism. Small town agrarian fascism that continues to exist.

Just keep breathing that smoke they blow up your backside.

Lees

 

[Simon W. Moon]

No, actually it was the Northern States that were rebelling as they rebelled against the Constitution. The South was not in rebellion against the Constitution. The South simply secede as it was not being given it's protections under the Constitution.
The North was the Traitor. Not the South.
Lees

did you make this up all by yourself or did someone else help you with it?

 

[Lees]

Quote all you want.

South attempted to secede.

South started a war.

South got slapped down.

Secession terminated.

The South did secede....peacefully. We didn't start the War.

Secession was terminated by War. Not by the legal proclamation of law. Which the U.S. loves to proclaim that we are a nation of 'Laws'. Except when they want to break them.

Lees

 

[Lees]

None of that supports your wild claim "The North was guilty of that War. The North was the Traitor, not the South."

Sure it does. The North had the perfect opportunity to prove the illegality of secession with the Jeff Davis trial. And they boasted before the whole world that they would. Yet they balked. They saw they might not win that case. They saw that the North would be perceived as guilty of 800,000 lives and not the South. That the North would be seen as traitor, and not the South.

The South had the Constitution on it's side, not the North. The North were traitors to the Constitution not the South.

Why do you think the North had to change the Constitution after the War? Because it was against them. What a bulletin.

Lees

 

[Jezcoe]

From: (Secession On Trial, Cynthia Nicoletti, Cambridge University Press, 2017)

"Animated by a widespread Southern secession movement to preserve the institution of slavery, the war demonstrated Northerners' commitment to maintain the Union intact. Nevertheless, it rmained necessary for Northerners and Southerners to determine the war's legal significance in the wake of Union military victory. " p. (18)

"In 1865, Americans were unsure whether Union victory in the field would stand as the definite pronouncement of secession's illegality or whether Davis's case would provide an alternate answer to that question." p. (18)

"The war had prevented the disintegration of the Union, but many feared that the 'verdict' of the war would not survive a legal challenge in a regularly constituted court of law." p.(19)

Thus the Jeff Davis case would be chosen to prove the treason of secession, but once the lawyers made the preparations for that trial they feared it would be found in the South's favor. So, rather then taking that chance, the were willing to let Jeff Davis go free.

These are just a few quotes. If you want more, let me know.

Lees

Texas V White.

The determination was made.

 

[Lees]

did you make this up all by yourself or did someone else help you with it?

It's called history.

Lees

 

[reinaert]

No, actually it was the Northern States that were rebelling as they rebelled against the Constitution. The South was not in rebellion against the Constitution. The South simply secede as it was not being given it's protections under the Constitution.

The North was the Traitor. Not the South.

Lees

Heh. Should have stretched every Confederate neck from Sgt up to General Staff, every officeholder and official of the Confederacy, every slave patroller and agent, every overseer and owner, and every single merchant who serviced the slave business. Should have lined the roads from Philly to Atlanta with their neck-lengthened corpses.

Put the vile Lost Cause to death once and for ever...

 

[Lees]

Texas V White.

The determination was made.

No it wasn't. The case of secession was not argued before the Supreme Court in the Texas vs White case. It was just Chase saying it to prove his case that Texas didn't have to pay back the money. That was his way to try and get secession claimed illegal when he knew he coulldn't do it with the Jeff Davis case.

Lees

 

[Jezcoe]

No it wasn't. The case of secession was not argued before the Supreme Court in the Texas vs White case. It was just Chase saying it to prove his case that Texas didn't have to pay back the money. That was his way to try and get secession claimed illegal when he knew he coulldn't do it with the Jeff Davis case.

Lees

It was determined by Texas v White.

And if one had looked into Nicoletti’s book past the forward one would see that Davis wasn’t tried for a lot of the same reasons Trump wasn’t tried.

A combination of cowardice, incompetence, legalistic stonewalling and a growing desire to put the whole thing behind them.

 

[DCCougar]

The North was the Traitor. Not the South.

Secession on Trial does not support the proposition that the North was the traitor rather than the South. In fact, the book carefully examines the legal complexities surrounding secession and the treason prosecution of Jefferson Davis, without adopting or promoting the revisionist narrative that the Confederacy was justified or that the Union was the aggressor.

 

[Lees]

It was determined by Texas v White.

And if one had looked into Nicoletti’s book past the forward one would see that Davis wasn’t tried for a lot of the same reasons Trump wasn’t tried.

A combination of cowardice, incompetence, legalistic stonewalling and a growing desire to put the whole thing behind them.

No, Texas vs White was not about arguing secession before the Supreme Court. It settled nothing concerning the legality of secession. It was only Chase's arugument to prove the case concerning the repayment of money by Texas.

Jeff Davis wasn't tried because the lawyers feared he would be found not guilty.

But they were so bold before claiming they would hang Jeff Davis from a sour apple tree. They would show the world how they treat traitors. Yes, cowards they became.

Lees

 

[SavannahMann]

No, actually it was the Northern States that were rebelling as they rebelled against the Constitution. The South was not in rebellion against the Constitution. The South simply secede as it was not being given it's protections under the Constitution.

The North was the Traitor. Not the South.

Lees

And Fort Sumpter fired first.

 

[Jezcoe]

No, Texas vs White was not about arguing secession before the Supreme Court. It settled nothing concerning the legality of secession. It was only Chase's arugument to prove the case concerning the repayment of money by Texas.

The Confederacy wasn't legitimate. Therefore Secession wasn't legitimate.

Jeff Davis wasn't tried because the lawyers feared he would be found not guilty.

But they were so bold before claiming they would hang Jeff Davis from a sour apple tree. They would show the world how they treat traitors. Yes, cowards they became.

Lees

Did you read past the forward of the book?

 

[Lees]

Secession on Trial does not support the proposition that the North was the traitor rather than the South. In fact, the book carefully examines the legal complexities surrounding secession and the treason prosecution of Jefferson Davis, without adopting or promoting the revisionist narrative that the Confederacy was justified or that the Union was the aggressor.

Sure it does. Because if secession was legitimate, then the North went to War against the South illegally. The 10th Amendment. The North was already traitor to the Constitution in refusing to accept the Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court. And then helping fund the murderer John Brown to attack Virginia at Harpers Ferry.

The 'no trial'of Jeff Davis proves the North didn't want to be labeled as the real traitor.

Lees

 

[Jezcoe]

Sure it does. Because if secession was legitimate, then the North went to War against the South illegally. The 10th Amendment. The North was already traitor to the Constitution in refusing to accept the Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court. And then helping fund the murderer John Brown to attack Virginia at Harpers Ferry.

The 'no trial'of Jeff Davis proves the North didn't want to be labeled as the real traitor.

Lees

I have this feeling that we are talking to a Jeff Davis AI bot at this point.

 

[Lees]

And Fort Sumpter fired first.

No, the South fired first, but the act of war was already commited by the North in moving troops from Moultrie to Sumter during the negotiations of the Forts.

And then the North commited another act of war in trying to deceptively send the 'Star of the west' to reinforce Sumter.

The North started the war.

Lees

 

[SavannahMann]

No, the South fired first, but the act of war was already commited by the North in moving troops from Moultrie to Sumter during the negotiations of the Forts.

And then the North commited another act of war in trying to deceptively send the 'Star of the west' to reinforce Sumter.

The North started the war.

Lees

It is getting so hard to keep track of Revisionist History. I mean the paper of the books is worn thin and has holes from all the erasing and rewriting.

 

[Lees]

The Confederacy wasn't legitimate. Therefore Secession wasn't legitimate.


Did you read past the forward of the book?

Secession was legitimate. 10th Amendment. Thus the Confederacy was legitimate.

Sure did. If you have quotes you would like me to read, give them.

Lees

 

[Fledermaus]

The South did secede....peacefully. We didn't start the War.

Secession was terminated by War. Not by the legal proclamation of law. Which the U.S. loves to proclaim that we are a nation of 'Laws'. Except when they want to break them.

Lees

Time to first lie.

First sentence.

Who illegally commandeered Federal property, facilities, mint, naval yards?
Who fired on the Federal shipping?
Who fired on the Federal fort?

It wasn't the North.

Secession didn't require a legal proclamation of law since the war effectively ended the secession.

 

[Fledermaus]

Sure it does. The North had the perfect opportunity to prove the illegality of secession with the Jeff Davis trial. And they boasted before the whole world that they would. Yet they balked. They saw they might not win that case. They saw that the North would be perceived as guilty of 800,000 lives and not the South. That the North would be seen as traitor, and not the South.

The South had the Constitution on it's side, not the North. The North were traitors to the Constitution not the South.

Why do you think the North had to change the Constitution after the War? Because it was against them. What a bulletin.

Lees

No Jefferson Davis trial was required.

 

[Jezcoe]

No, the South fired first, but the act of war was already commited by the North in moving troops from Moultrie to Sumter during the negotiations of the Forts.

Anderson did that on his own. He was not commanded to do so. He did it because Sumpter was a more defensible place to protect his men if they came under attack.. which they did.

And then the North commited another act of war in trying to deceptively send the 'Star of the west' to reinforce Sumter.

An unarmed supply ship is not a threat worthy of starting a war.

No one is buying your nonsense.

 

[Jezcoe]

Secession was legitimate. 10th Amendment. Thus the Confederacy was legitimate.

Sure did. If you have quotes you would like me to read, give them.

Lees

I got my answer about not reading past the forward.

Thanks.

 

[Lees]

Time to first lie.

First sentence.

Who illegally commandeered Federal property, facilities, mint, naval yards?
Who fired on the Federal shipping?
Who fired on the Federal fort?

It wasn't the North.

Secession didn't require a legal proclamation of law since the war effectively ended the secession.

The South seceded.

Anderson broke the agreement to not move troops during the negtiations. Anderson even had to make a bayonet charge against the workers at Sumter, once he and his men made it to Sumter. Anderson made the illegal move upon Sumter.

Who sent the Federal shipping deceptively trying to reinforce Sumter. And act of war.

Two acts of war were preceded by the North before the firing of the South on Sumter.

Lees