Jeeze, really?
About That Alleged Racial Incident at the BYU-Duke Match
23,975 Views |
446 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by Jack Bauer
Harrison Bergeron said:
At the end of the day we can tell the difference between Asians and Indians working hard and building wealth and bleks waiting on the porch for a handout. But let's pretend t'racism is a thing.
What's a more than a bit ironic about this is that the vast majority of blacks aren't any different from any other ethnic group in America.
D. C. Bear said:Redbrickbear said:D. C. Bear said:Redbrickbear said:cowboycwr said:LOL.Johnny Bear said:cowboycwr said:Johnny Bear said:D. C. Bear said:Redbrickbear said:D. C. Bear said:Johnny Bear said:D. C. Bear said:Fre3dombear said:ATL Bear said:Yes, freedom has never been something that has been fought for throughout history... And preserving a union is so not a faceless endeavor…. Name definitely doesn't check out.Fre3dombear said:ATL Bear said:It isn't about secession. It's about the denialism of the primary reason for secession. The attempt to minimize slavery's role in it is comical, and the mental contortions necessary to present it otherwise are bizarre. Slavery was the South's economic interest. Slavery was its "States Right". Slavery was the reason for seceding.UTExan said:
This thread has quickly evolved to the legitimacy of secession and apparently how those who desire to secede or be separate are somehow traitors despite their beliefs that they stand on principle. If we treated all persons desiring to secede as traitors, then we should have arrested and tried New Englanders during the War of 1812, because their commercial interests with England were threatened and they were prepared to leave the Union and return to England.
The same goes for the Mormons in 1858 who were prepared to wage long term guerilla warfare against the US Army as it entered the Utah territory.
What we really ought to be asking, IMO, is how do we move forward on race and create a truly inclusive society? If we do it by force and arbitrarily favor one group, we will see a backlash against that favoritism. Indeed, our Reconstruction period showed us the foolishness of that as Radical Republicans like Thaddeus Stevens sought to make federal action openly discriminatory and punitive against the south. If we do it by socialization ( our churches, which ought to be leading this are an example ) we can make it work. But false accusations of racism and never holding race grifters to account only breeds resentment from those falsely accused and sets back the work of race reconciliation.
It's amazing some people believe 18 and 19 year old men left their wives, kids, families and homes to die to make sure some nameless black person could be free
And of that were the case, the thanklessness of todays generations for those that died to help those that couldn't help themselves is appalling.
Interesting take on history though but great propaganda for the easily duped
As such the learned individual that you are, I'm sure even you can find her Abe Lincoln's own quote that the civil war was not to free the slaves.
But believe what you want. It used to be a free country. And now thanks to socialist democrats and those easily duped, even a man is a woman
progress, science and stuff
The Civil War was fought to preserve slavery. As a consequence of its outcome, slavery was legally ended in the United States.
Wrong.
From the North's perspective the war was fought to preserve the Union. From the South's perspective it was fought to defend the independence of the new seceded nation they were trying to build. As the war raged, an additional and secondary war goal of Lincoln's and the North ultimately became the abolition of slavery (the Emancipation Proclamation was issued on 1/1/1863 after over a year and a half of bloody fighting), but it was never the main or overriding goal and the notion that the entire thing was ALL about a grand crusade to end slavery is a myth. Granted, it's a popular myth - but still - a myth.
The best long term consequence of the war, however, was that legal slavery ended in our country.
Why don't you believe the southern states who said they were fighting to preserve slavery?
They never said they were fighting a war to preserve slavery (something already protected under U.S.) Federal law.
They said quite clearly they were fighting to break off from the Federal government in DC
And to defend themselves from what they saw as a foreign military invasion.
Read the reasons they gave for leaving the union. They left to protect slavery, so they fought to protect slavery and, because they lost, they failed to protect slavery.
Wrong.
They fought to protect their newly formed country. Yes, legal slavery existed as a part of their way of life, but what was really a fight for states rights was about a lot more than just protecting slavery. They lost the fight and again, the best consequence of that was that slavery ended.
Wrong. Read their secession declarations. Protecting slavery is why they did it.
The vast majority of the boys, teenagers, and men who fought for the Confederacy didn't own slaves and were never going to own slaves. Does it make sense that all of these men would've suffered, starved, bled and died the way they did so some rich guy who lived 50 miles away that they didn't run in the same circles with could continue to own slaves? Granted, I'm sure they were fine with slavery continuing, but it's nonsensical to think that they would've willingly gone through what they went through simply to preserve slavery. They were mainly fighting to defend their homes, their states, and the new country they were trying to establish.
They fought because they were lied to, drafted, forced to go fight and told it was all about "states rights" and this new (illegal) country they tried to start.
What is an "illegal country"?
I'm sure the British thought the USA was "illegal".
Russian thinks Ukraine is "illegal"
China thinks Taiwan is "illegal"
Counties belong to the people who inhabit them and self determination is the right of all free people.
Virginia for instance is 200 years older as a political community and government than the United Stated of America.
If I decided to make my own country on some random land in Falls County, I would have just as much a right to do so as South Carolina had to leave the union in 1860, that being none at all.
We were an "illegal country" until we won and got the British crown to agree that we were legitimate instead of rounding our guys up and hanging them for the treason they most assuredly committed.
You continue to deny States the right to their independence and compare sovereign political communities that have existed for hundreds of years with you and some dip**** buddies in falls county.
No where does the United States Constitution say that a State that has freely joined the United States Union can not withdraw its membership and resume an independent character.
The states are not independent countries. This is settled law.
The States, who existed before the federal Union and who acting in their sovereign power created the Federal Union. May if they wish resume their independent status.
Anything less is imperialism and tyranny.
The USA, among all nations, has not leg to stand on when it comes to condemning secessionist movements since it was started in an act of secession from the United Kingdom.
Redbrickbear said:D. C. Bear said:Redbrickbear said:D. C. Bear said:Redbrickbear said:cowboycwr said:LOL.Johnny Bear said:cowboycwr said:Johnny Bear said:D. C. Bear said:Redbrickbear said:D. C. Bear said:Johnny Bear said:D. C. Bear said:Fre3dombear said:ATL Bear said:Yes, freedom has never been something that has been fought for throughout history... And preserving a union is so not a faceless endeavor…. Name definitely doesn't check out.Fre3dombear said:ATL Bear said:It isn't about secession. It's about the denialism of the primary reason for secession. The attempt to minimize slavery's role in it is comical, and the mental contortions necessary to present it otherwise are bizarre. Slavery was the South's economic interest. Slavery was its "States Right". Slavery was the reason for seceding.UTExan said:
This thread has quickly evolved to the legitimacy of secession and apparently how those who desire to secede or be separate are somehow traitors despite their beliefs that they stand on principle. If we treated all persons desiring to secede as traitors, then we should have arrested and tried New Englanders during the War of 1812, because their commercial interests with England were threatened and they were prepared to leave the Union and return to England.
The same goes for the Mormons in 1858 who were prepared to wage long term guerilla warfare against the US Army as it entered the Utah territory.
What we really ought to be asking, IMO, is how do we move forward on race and create a truly inclusive society? If we do it by force and arbitrarily favor one group, we will see a backlash against that favoritism. Indeed, our Reconstruction period showed us the foolishness of that as Radical Republicans like Thaddeus Stevens sought to make federal action openly discriminatory and punitive against the south. If we do it by socialization ( our churches, which ought to be leading this are an example ) we can make it work. But false accusations of racism and never holding race grifters to account only breeds resentment from those falsely accused and sets back the work of race reconciliation.
It's amazing some people believe 18 and 19 year old men left their wives, kids, families and homes to die to make sure some nameless black person could be free
And of that were the case, the thanklessness of todays generations for those that died to help those that couldn't help themselves is appalling.
Interesting take on history though but great propaganda for the easily duped
As such the learned individual that you are, I'm sure even you can find her Abe Lincoln's own quote that the civil war was not to free the slaves.
But believe what you want. It used to be a free country. And now thanks to socialist democrats and those easily duped, even a man is a woman
progress, science and stuff
The Civil War was fought to preserve slavery. As a consequence of its outcome, slavery was legally ended in the United States.
Wrong.
From the North's perspective the war was fought to preserve the Union. From the South's perspective it was fought to defend the independence of the new seceded nation they were trying to build. As the war raged, an additional and secondary war goal of Lincoln's and the North ultimately became the abolition of slavery (the Emancipation Proclamation was issued on 1/1/1863 after over a year and a half of bloody fighting), but it was never the main or overriding goal and the notion that the entire thing was ALL about a grand crusade to end slavery is a myth. Granted, it's a popular myth - but still - a myth.
The best long term consequence of the war, however, was that legal slavery ended in our country.
Why don't you believe the southern states who said they were fighting to preserve slavery?
They never said they were fighting a war to preserve slavery (something already protected under U.S.) Federal law.
They said quite clearly they were fighting to break off from the Federal government in DC
And to defend themselves from what they saw as a foreign military invasion.
Read the reasons they gave for leaving the union. They left to protect slavery, so they fought to protect slavery and, because they lost, they failed to protect slavery.
Wrong.
They fought to protect their newly formed country. Yes, legal slavery existed as a part of their way of life, but what was really a fight for states rights was about a lot more than just protecting slavery. They lost the fight and again, the best consequence of that was that slavery ended.
Wrong. Read their secession declarations. Protecting slavery is why they did it.
The vast majority of the boys, teenagers, and men who fought for the Confederacy didn't own slaves and were never going to own slaves. Does it make sense that all of these men would've suffered, starved, bled and died the way they did so some rich guy who lived 50 miles away that they didn't run in the same circles with could continue to own slaves? Granted, I'm sure they were fine with slavery continuing, but it's nonsensical to think that they would've willingly gone through what they went through simply to preserve slavery. They were mainly fighting to defend their homes, their states, and the new country they were trying to establish.
They fought because they were lied to, drafted, forced to go fight and told it was all about "states rights" and this new (illegal) country they tried to start.
What is an "illegal country"?
I'm sure the British thought the USA was "illegal".
Russian thinks Ukraine is "illegal"
China thinks Taiwan is "illegal"
Counties belong to the people who inhabit them and self determination is the right of all free people.
Virginia for instance is 200 years older as a political community and government than the United Stated of America.
If I decided to make my own country on some random land in Falls County, I would have just as much a right to do so as South Carolina had to leave the union in 1860, that being none at all.
We were an "illegal country" until we won and got the British crown to agree that we were legitimate instead of rounding our guys up and hanging them for the treason they most assuredly committed.
You continue to deny States the right to their independence and compare sovereign political communities that have existed for hundreds of years with you and some dip**** buddies in falls county.
No where does the United States Constitution say that a State that has freely joined the United States Union can not withdraw its membership and resume an independent character.
The states are not independent countries. This is settled law.
The States, who existed before the federal Union and who acting in their sovereign power created the Federal Union. May if they wish resume their independent status.
Anything less is imperialism and tyranny.
The USA, among all nations, has not leg to stand on when it comes to condemning secessionist movements since it was started in an act of secession from the United Kingdom.
You can bloviate all you want, but the lack of a right to secede from the Union is a matter of settled law.
"But it does not follow that because there is no constitutional process set out for the secession of a State, it is obliged under all circumstances to remain in the Federal Union. There is a natural right, which is reserved by all men, and which cannot be given to any Government, and no Government can take it away. It is the natural right of a people to form a Government for their mutual protection, for the promotion of their mutual welfare, and for such other purposes as they may deem most conducive to their mutual happiness and prosperity; but if for any cause the Government so formed should become inimical to the rights and interests of the people, instead of affording protection to their persons and property, and securing the happiness and prosperity, to attain which it was established, it is the natural right of the people to change the Government regardless of Constitutions.
For be it borne in mind, the Constitution is an agreement made among the people that the Government formed by it is to be just such a Government as it prescribes; that when it recognizes a right to exist, it must protect the person in the enjoyment of that right, and when it imposes a reciprocal duty upon a portion of the people, the performance of that duty it will have enforced. When a government fails in any of these essential respects, it is not the Government the people intended it to be, and it is their right to modify or abolish it.
So, if the rights of the people of the United States as recognized by the Constitution, are not secured to them by the Government, and the people of any State have no other means to redress their grievances except by separating themselves from their oppressors, it is their undoubted natural right to do so."
For be it borne in mind, the Constitution is an agreement made among the people that the Government formed by it is to be just such a Government as it prescribes; that when it recognizes a right to exist, it must protect the person in the enjoyment of that right, and when it imposes a reciprocal duty upon a portion of the people, the performance of that duty it will have enforced. When a government fails in any of these essential respects, it is not the Government the people intended it to be, and it is their right to modify or abolish it.
So, if the rights of the people of the United States as recognized by the Constitution, are not secured to them by the Government, and the people of any State have no other means to redress their grievances except by separating themselves from their oppressors, it is their undoubted natural right to do so."
D. C. Bear said:Redbrickbear said:D. C. Bear said:Redbrickbear said:D. C. Bear said:Redbrickbear said:cowboycwr said:LOL.Johnny Bear said:cowboycwr said:Johnny Bear said:D. C. Bear said:Redbrickbear said:D. C. Bear said:Johnny Bear said:D. C. Bear said:Fre3dombear said:ATL Bear said:Yes, freedom has never been something that has been fought for throughout history... And preserving a union is so not a faceless endeavor…. Name definitely doesn't check out.Fre3dombear said:ATL Bear said:It isn't about secession. It's about the denialism of the primary reason for secession. The attempt to minimize slavery's role in it is comical, and the mental contortions necessary to present it otherwise are bizarre. Slavery was the South's economic interest. Slavery was its "States Right". Slavery was the reason for seceding.UTExan said:
This thread has quickly evolved to the legitimacy of secession and apparently how those who desire to secede or be separate are somehow traitors despite their beliefs that they stand on principle. If we treated all persons desiring to secede as traitors, then we should have arrested and tried New Englanders during the War of 1812, because their commercial interests with England were threatened and they were prepared to leave the Union and return to England.
The same goes for the Mormons in 1858 who were prepared to wage long term guerilla warfare against the US Army as it entered the Utah territory.
What we really ought to be asking, IMO, is how do we move forward on race and create a truly inclusive society? If we do it by force and arbitrarily favor one group, we will see a backlash against that favoritism. Indeed, our Reconstruction period showed us the foolishness of that as Radical Republicans like Thaddeus Stevens sought to make federal action openly discriminatory and punitive against the south. If we do it by socialization ( our churches, which ought to be leading this are an example ) we can make it work. But false accusations of racism and never holding race grifters to account only breeds resentment from those falsely accused and sets back the work of race reconciliation.
It's amazing some people believe 18 and 19 year old men left their wives, kids, families and homes to die to make sure some nameless black person could be free
And of that were the case, the thanklessness of todays generations for those that died to help those that couldn't help themselves is appalling.
Interesting take on history though but great propaganda for the easily duped
As such the learned individual that you are, I'm sure even you can find her Abe Lincoln's own quote that the civil war was not to free the slaves.
But believe what you want. It used to be a free country. And now thanks to socialist democrats and those easily duped, even a man is a woman
progress, science and stuff
The Civil War was fought to preserve slavery. As a consequence of its outcome, slavery was legally ended in the United States.
Wrong.
From the North's perspective the war was fought to preserve the Union. From the South's perspective it was fought to defend the independence of the new seceded nation they were trying to build. As the war raged, an additional and secondary war goal of Lincoln's and the North ultimately became the abolition of slavery (the Emancipation Proclamation was issued on 1/1/1863 after over a year and a half of bloody fighting), but it was never the main or overriding goal and the notion that the entire thing was ALL about a grand crusade to end slavery is a myth. Granted, it's a popular myth - but still - a myth.
The best long term consequence of the war, however, was that legal slavery ended in our country.
Why don't you believe the southern states who said they were fighting to preserve slavery?
They never said they were fighting a war to preserve slavery (something already protected under U.S.) Federal law.
They said quite clearly they were fighting to break off from the Federal government in DC
And to defend themselves from what they saw as a foreign military invasion.
Read the reasons they gave for leaving the union. They left to protect slavery, so they fought to protect slavery and, because they lost, they failed to protect slavery.
Wrong.
They fought to protect their newly formed country. Yes, legal slavery existed as a part of their way of life, but what was really a fight for states rights was about a lot more than just protecting slavery. They lost the fight and again, the best consequence of that was that slavery ended.
Wrong. Read their secession declarations. Protecting slavery is why they did it.
The vast majority of the boys, teenagers, and men who fought for the Confederacy didn't own slaves and were never going to own slaves. Does it make sense that all of these men would've suffered, starved, bled and died the way they did so some rich guy who lived 50 miles away that they didn't run in the same circles with could continue to own slaves? Granted, I'm sure they were fine with slavery continuing, but it's nonsensical to think that they would've willingly gone through what they went through simply to preserve slavery. They were mainly fighting to defend their homes, their states, and the new country they were trying to establish.
They fought because they were lied to, drafted, forced to go fight and told it was all about "states rights" and this new (illegal) country they tried to start.
What is an "illegal country"?
I'm sure the British thought the USA was "illegal".
Russian thinks Ukraine is "illegal"
China thinks Taiwan is "illegal"
Counties belong to the people who inhabit them and self determination is the right of all free people.
Virginia for instance is 200 years older as a political community and government than the United Stated of America.
If I decided to make my own country on some random land in Falls County, I would have just as much a right to do so as South Carolina had to leave the union in 1860, that being none at all.
We were an "illegal country" until we won and got the British crown to agree that we were legitimate instead of rounding our guys up and hanging them for the treason they most assuredly committed.
You continue to deny States the right to their independence and compare sovereign political communities that have existed for hundreds of years with you and some dip**** buddies in falls county.
No where does the United States Constitution say that a State that has freely joined the United States Union can not withdraw its membership and resume an independent character.
The states are not independent countries. This is settled law.
The States, who existed before the federal Union and who acting in their sovereign power created the Federal Union. May if they wish resume their independent status.
Anything less is imperialism and tyranny.
The USA, among all nations, has not leg to stand on when it comes to condemning secessionist movements since it was started in an act of secession from the United Kingdom.
You can bloviate all you want, but the lack of a right to secede from the Union is a matter of settled law.
The Federal government has no rights, except those specially granted to it by the States and the people.
All other rights are retained forever by the States and the people.
No where in the Constitution is the Federal government granted the right to physical force a State to remain in the Union or to use military force to keep it from becoming independent.
Redbrickbear said:
"But it does not follow that because there is no constitutional process set out for the secession of a State, it is obliged under all circumstances to remain in the Federal Union. There is a natural right, which is reserved by all men, and which cannot be given to any Government, and no Government can take it away. It is the natural right of a people to form a Government for their mutual protection, for the promotion of their mutual welfare, and for such other purposes as they may deem most conducive to their mutual happiness and prosperity; but if for any cause the Government so formed should become inimical to the rights and interests of the people, instead of affording protection to their persons and property, and securing the happiness and prosperity, to attain which it was established, it is the natural right of the people to change the Government regardless of Constitutions.
For be it borne in mind, the Constitution is an agreement made among the people that the Government formed by it is to be just such a Government as it prescribes; that when it recognizes a right to exist, it must protect the person in the enjoyment of that right, and when it imposes a reciprocal duty upon a portion of the people, the performance of that duty it will have enforced. When a government fails in any of these essential respects, it is not the Government the people intended it to be, and it is their right to modify or abolish it.
So, if the rights of the people of the United States as recognized by the Constitution, are not secured to them by the Government, and the people of any State have no other means to redress their grievances except by separating themselves from their oppressors, it is their undoubted natural right to do so."
It did not mean you had to do so just because I said "You can bloviate all you want."
D. C. Bear said:Redbrickbear said:
"But it does not follow that because there is no constitutional process set out for the secession of a State, it is obliged under all circumstances to remain in the Federal Union. There is a natural right, which is reserved by all men, and which cannot be given to any Government, and no Government can take it away. It is the natural right of a people to form a Government for their mutual protection, for the promotion of their mutual welfare, and for such other purposes as they may deem most conducive to their mutual happiness and prosperity; but if for any cause the Government so formed should become inimical to the rights and interests of the people, instead of affording protection to their persons and property, and securing the happiness and prosperity, to attain which it was established, it is the natural right of the people to change the Government regardless of Constitutions.
For be it borne in mind, the Constitution is an agreement made among the people that the Government formed by it is to be just such a Government as it prescribes; that when it recognizes a right to exist, it must protect the person in the enjoyment of that right, and when it imposes a reciprocal duty upon a portion of the people, the performance of that duty it will have enforced. When a government fails in any of these essential respects, it is not the Government the people intended it to be, and it is their right to modify or abolish it.
So, if the rights of the people of the United States as recognized by the Constitution, are not secured to them by the Government, and the people of any State have no other means to redress their grievances except by separating themselves from their oppressors, it is their undoubted natural right to do so."
It did not mean you had to do so just because I said "You can bloviate all you want."
You can't seem to ever come up with any persuasive arguments from history or from the Federal Constitution yourself…so you call all such documentation "bloviating"
At some point you are going to have to deal with facts.
Redbrickbear said:D. C. Bear said:Redbrickbear said:
"But it does not follow that because there is no constitutional process set out for the secession of a State, it is obliged under all circumstances to remain in the Federal Union. There is a natural right, which is reserved by all men, and which cannot be given to any Government, and no Government can take it away. It is the natural right of a people to form a Government for their mutual protection, for the promotion of their mutual welfare, and for such other purposes as they may deem most conducive to their mutual happiness and prosperity; but if for any cause the Government so formed should become inimical to the rights and interests of the people, instead of affording protection to their persons and property, and securing the happiness and prosperity, to attain which it was established, it is the natural right of the people to change the Government regardless of Constitutions.
For be it borne in mind, the Constitution is an agreement made among the people that the Government formed by it is to be just such a Government as it prescribes; that when it recognizes a right to exist, it must protect the person in the enjoyment of that right, and when it imposes a reciprocal duty upon a portion of the people, the performance of that duty it will have enforced. When a government fails in any of these essential respects, it is not the Government the people intended it to be, and it is their right to modify or abolish it.
So, if the rights of the people of the United States as recognized by the Constitution, are not secured to them by the Government, and the people of any State have no other means to redress their grievances except by separating themselves from their oppressors, it is their undoubted natural right to do so."
It did not mean you had to do so just because I said "You can bloviate all you want."
You can't seem to ever come up with any persuasive arguments from history or from the Federal Constitution yourself…so you call all such documentation "bloviating"
At some point you are going to have to deal with facts.
Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the right to call out militia to suppress insurrections.
Supreme Court rulings confirm that I am correct as to the law.
Also, the south lost.
D. C. Bear said:Redbrickbear said:D. C. Bear said:Redbrickbear said:
"But it does not follow that because there is no constitutional process set out for the secession of a State, it is obliged under all circumstances to remain in the Federal Union. There is a natural right, which is reserved by all men, and which cannot be given to any Government, and no Government can take it away. It is the natural right of a people to form a Government for their mutual protection, for the promotion of their mutual welfare, and for such other purposes as they may deem most conducive to their mutual happiness and prosperity; but if for any cause the Government so formed should become inimical to the rights and interests of the people, instead of affording protection to their persons and property, and securing the happiness and prosperity, to attain which it was established, it is the natural right of the people to change the Government regardless of Constitutions.
For be it borne in mind, the Constitution is an agreement made among the people that the Government formed by it is to be just such a Government as it prescribes; that when it recognizes a right to exist, it must protect the person in the enjoyment of that right, and when it imposes a reciprocal duty upon a portion of the people, the performance of that duty it will have enforced. When a government fails in any of these essential respects, it is not the Government the people intended it to be, and it is their right to modify or abolish it.
So, if the rights of the people of the United States as recognized by the Constitution, are not secured to them by the Government, and the people of any State have no other means to redress their grievances except by separating themselves from their oppressors, it is their undoubted natural right to do so."
It did not mean you had to do so just because I said "You can bloviate all you want."
You can't seem to ever come up with any persuasive arguments from history or from the Federal Constitution yourself…so you call all such documentation "bloviating"
At some point you are going to have to deal with facts.
Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the right to call out militia to suppress insurrections.
Supreme Court rulings confirm that I am correct as to the law.
Also, the south lost.
The Congress has the right to call the militia at the request of the State to enforce order. A State voting to withdraw from the Union is not an insurrection.
How can a State government commit insurrection against itself?
Being militarily conquered by a Federal government willing to violate the Constitution and commit war crimes against civilians does not invalidate the principal of self government and self determination.
Redbrickbear said:D. C. Bear said:Redbrickbear said:D. C. Bear said:Redbrickbear said:
"But it does not follow that because there is no constitutional process set out for the secession of a State, it is obliged under all circumstances to remain in the Federal Union. There is a natural right, which is reserved by all men, and which cannot be given to any Government, and no Government can take it away. It is the natural right of a people to form a Government for their mutual protection, for the promotion of their mutual welfare, and for such other purposes as they may deem most conducive to their mutual happiness and prosperity; but if for any cause the Government so formed should become inimical to the rights and interests of the people, instead of affording protection to their persons and property, and securing the happiness and prosperity, to attain which it was established, it is the natural right of the people to change the Government regardless of Constitutions.
For be it borne in mind, the Constitution is an agreement made among the people that the Government formed by it is to be just such a Government as it prescribes; that when it recognizes a right to exist, it must protect the person in the enjoyment of that right, and when it imposes a reciprocal duty upon a portion of the people, the performance of that duty it will have enforced. When a government fails in any of these essential respects, it is not the Government the people intended it to be, and it is their right to modify or abolish it.
So, if the rights of the people of the United States as recognized by the Constitution, are not secured to them by the Government, and the people of any State have no other means to redress their grievances except by separating themselves from their oppressors, it is their undoubted natural right to do so."
It did not mean you had to do so just because I said "You can bloviate all you want."
You can't seem to ever come up with any persuasive arguments from history or from the Federal Constitution yourself…so you call all such documentation "bloviating"
At some point you are going to have to deal with facts.
Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the right to call out militia to suppress insurrections.
Supreme Court rulings confirm that I am correct as to the law.
Also, the south lost.
The Congress has the right to call the militia at the request of the State to enforce order. A State voting to withdraw from the Union is not an insurrection.
How can a State government commit insurrection against itself?
Being militarily conquered by a Federal government willing to violate the Constitution and commit war crimes against civilians does not invalidate the principal of self government and self determination.
No, not to "enforce order." Rather, Congress has the power "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions."
It was a violation of the Constitution for those southern states who attempted to leave the union to do so because there is no constitutional right to leave the union. Again, this is a matter of settled law.
Illegitimate state governments may certainly engage in insurrections against the United States. They did so. They did so because they wanted to protect the right of their citizens to own other human beings in the same way that we own livestock. They failed.
Did David Ben Gurion lead an insurrection against the British in a territory under their administration? Or is he the Founding Father of a legitimate national government much like George Washington?
The difference between an illegitimate organized insurrection and a successful national independence movement is merely the result. If the movement is successful, then it matters very little what legal authority one might reference to call it "illegitimate." Or to paraphrase Principal Joe Clark in Lean On Me:
That fire chief is saying Joe Clark cannot kick me out of the school. But you know where he is saying that? In the parking lot.
The difference between an illegitimate organized insurrection and a successful national independence movement is merely the result. If the movement is successful, then it matters very little what legal authority one might reference to call it "illegitimate." Or to paraphrase Principal Joe Clark in Lean On Me:
That fire chief is saying Joe Clark cannot kick me out of the school. But you know where he is saying that? In the parking lot.
D. C. Bear said:Redbrickbear said:D. C. Bear said:Redbrickbear said:D. C. Bear said:Redbrickbear said:
"But it does not follow that because there is no constitutional process set out for the secession of a State, it is obliged under all circumstances to remain in the Federal Union. There is a natural right, which is reserved by all men, and which cannot be given to any Government, and no Government can take it away. It is the natural right of a people to form a Government for their mutual protection, for the promotion of their mutual welfare, and for such other purposes as they may deem most conducive to their mutual happiness and prosperity; but if for any cause the Government so formed should become inimical to the rights and interests of the people, instead of affording protection to their persons and property, and securing the happiness and prosperity, to attain which it was established, it is the natural right of the people to change the Government regardless of Constitutions.
For be it borne in mind, the Constitution is an agreement made among the people that the Government formed by it is to be just such a Government as it prescribes; that when it recognizes a right to exist, it must protect the person in the enjoyment of that right, and when it imposes a reciprocal duty upon a portion of the people, the performance of that duty it will have enforced. When a government fails in any of these essential respects, it is not the Government the people intended it to be, and it is their right to modify or abolish it.
So, if the rights of the people of the United States as recognized by the Constitution, are not secured to them by the Government, and the people of any State have no other means to redress their grievances except by separating themselves from their oppressors, it is their undoubted natural right to do so."
It did not mean you had to do so just because I said "You can bloviate all you want."
You can't seem to ever come up with any persuasive arguments from history or from the Federal Constitution yourself…so you call all such documentation "bloviating"
At some point you are going to have to deal with facts.
Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the right to call out militia to suppress insurrections.
Supreme Court rulings confirm that I am correct as to the law.
Also, the south lost.
The Congress has the right to call the militia at the request of the State to enforce order. A State voting to withdraw from the Union is not an insurrection.
How can a State government commit insurrection against itself?
Being militarily conquered by a Federal government willing to violate the Constitution and commit war crimes against civilians does not invalidate the principal of self government and self determination.
No, not to "enforce order." Rather, Congress has the power "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions."
It was a violation of the Constitution for those southern states who attempted to leave the union to do so because there is no constitutional right to leave the union. Again, this is a matter of settled law.
Illegitimate state governments may certainly engage in insurrections against the United States. They did so. They did so because they wanted to protect the right of their citizens to own other human beings in the same way that we own livestock. They failed.
The States, acting in their sovereign power and authority, can not be engaging in "insurrection" against the Federal government by voting to leave the Union.
A Union they voluntarily joined.
The founding fathers never even conceived of such a definition of "insurrection". Again lawfully democratically elected State governments can not commit insurrection against themselves.
So who is the federal militia being called out to protect? Federal troops "protecting" a state from its own government and citizens?
Lincoln pretended that the State governments of the South and the Southern people were somehow in "insurrection" against the real governments of the South that were somewhere else hidden from view.
It was a legal fiction necessary for him to prosecute an illegal war.
Voting to leave the Federal Union is not a violation of the U.S. Constitution and is completely in harmony with the views of the Founding Fathers who themselves voted to leave a political union with Great Britain.
Redbrickbear said:D. C. Bear said:Redbrickbear said:D. C. Bear said:Redbrickbear said:D. C. Bear said:Redbrickbear said:
"But it does not follow that because there is no constitutional process set out for the secession of a State, it is obliged under all circumstances to remain in the Federal Union. There is a natural right, which is reserved by all men, and which cannot be given to any Government, and no Government can take it away. It is the natural right of a people to form a Government for their mutual protection, for the promotion of their mutual welfare, and for such other purposes as they may deem most conducive to their mutual happiness and prosperity; but if for any cause the Government so formed should become inimical to the rights and interests of the people, instead of affording protection to their persons and property, and securing the happiness and prosperity, to attain which it was established, it is the natural right of the people to change the Government regardless of Constitutions.
For be it borne in mind, the Constitution is an agreement made among the people that the Government formed by it is to be just such a Government as it prescribes; that when it recognizes a right to exist, it must protect the person in the enjoyment of that right, and when it imposes a reciprocal duty upon a portion of the people, the performance of that duty it will have enforced. When a government fails in any of these essential respects, it is not the Government the people intended it to be, and it is their right to modify or abolish it.
So, if the rights of the people of the United States as recognized by the Constitution, are not secured to them by the Government, and the people of any State have no other means to redress their grievances except by separating themselves from their oppressors, it is their undoubted natural right to do so."
It did not mean you had to do so just because I said "You can bloviate all you want."
You can't seem to ever come up with any persuasive arguments from history or from the Federal Constitution yourself…so you call all such documentation "bloviating"
At some point you are going to have to deal with facts.
Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the right to call out militia to suppress insurrections.
Supreme Court rulings confirm that I am correct as to the law.
Also, the south lost.
The Congress has the right to call the militia at the request of the State to enforce order. A State voting to withdraw from the Union is not an insurrection.
How can a State government commit insurrection against itself?
Being militarily conquered by a Federal government willing to violate the Constitution and commit war crimes against civilians does not invalidate the principal of self government and self determination.
No, not to "enforce order." Rather, Congress has the power "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions."
It was a violation of the Constitution for those southern states who attempted to leave the union to do so because there is no constitutional right to leave the union. Again, this is a matter of settled law.
Illegitimate state governments may certainly engage in insurrections against the United States. They did so. They did so because they wanted to protect the right of their citizens to own other human beings in the same way that we own livestock. They failed.
The States, acting in their sovereign power and authority, can not be engaging in "insurrection" against the Federal government by voting to leave the Union.
A Union they voluntarily joined.
The founding fathers never even conceived of such a definition of "insurrection". Again lawfully democratically elected State governments can not commit insurrection against themselves.
So who is the federal militia being called out to protect? Federal troops "protecting" a state from its own government and citizens?
Lincoln pretended that the State governments of the South and the Southern people were somehow in "insurrection" against the real governments of the South that were somewhere else hidden from view.
It was a legal fiction necessary for him to prosecute an illegal war.
Again, it is a matter of settled law that states do not have a constitutional right to leave union. They tried. They lost. The perpetual nature of the union was established before the constitution. It is also a historical fact that the states to leave the union because they were rightly afraid that their right to own other humans was under assault.
Redbrickbear said:
Voting to leave the Federal Union is not a violation of the U.S. Constitution and is completely in harmony with the views of the Founding Fathers who themselves voted to leave a political union with Great Britain.
The founding fathers were well aware that what they were doing was treason against the crown and they would have to fight to get what they wanted.
D. C. Bear said:Redbrickbear said:
Voting to leave the Federal Union is not a violation of the U.S. Constitution and is completely in harmony with the views of the Founding Fathers who themselves voted to leave a political union with Great Britain.
The founding fathers were well aware that what they were doing was treason against the crown and they would have to fight to get what they wanted.
And they specifically created a nation that would be more free than the one they had been apart of…
Including having the right to break off and create new systems of government/political unions when the people found it best.
D. C. Bear said:Redbrickbear said:D. C. Bear said:Redbrickbear said:D. C. Bear said:Redbrickbear said:D. C. Bear said:Redbrickbear said:
"But it does not follow that because there is no constitutional process set out for the secession of a State, it is obliged under all circumstances to remain in the Federal Union. There is a natural right, which is reserved by all men, and which cannot be given to any Government, and no Government can take it away. It is the natural right of a people to form a Government for their mutual protection, for the promotion of their mutual welfare, and for such other purposes as they may deem most conducive to their mutual happiness and prosperity; but if for any cause the Government so formed should become inimical to the rights and interests of the people, instead of affording protection to their persons and property, and securing the happiness and prosperity, to attain which it was established, it is the natural right of the people to change the Government regardless of Constitutions.
For be it borne in mind, the Constitution is an agreement made among the people that the Government formed by it is to be just such a Government as it prescribes; that when it recognizes a right to exist, it must protect the person in the enjoyment of that right, and when it imposes a reciprocal duty upon a portion of the people, the performance of that duty it will have enforced. When a government fails in any of these essential respects, it is not the Government the people intended it to be, and it is their right to modify or abolish it.
So, if the rights of the people of the United States as recognized by the Constitution, are not secured to them by the Government, and the people of any State have no other means to redress their grievances except by separating themselves from their oppressors, it is their undoubted natural right to do so."
It did not mean you had to do so just because I said "You can bloviate all you want."
You can't seem to ever come up with any persuasive arguments from history or from the Federal Constitution yourself…so you call all such documentation "bloviating"
At some point you are going to have to deal with facts.
Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the right to call out militia to suppress insurrections.
Supreme Court rulings confirm that I am correct as to the law.
Also, the south lost.
The Congress has the right to call the militia at the request of the State to enforce order. A State voting to withdraw from the Union is not an insurrection.
How can a State government commit insurrection against itself?
Being militarily conquered by a Federal government willing to violate the Constitution and commit war crimes against civilians does not invalidate the principal of self government and self determination.
No, not to "enforce order." Rather, Congress has the power "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions."
It was a violation of the Constitution for those southern states who attempted to leave the union to do so because there is no constitutional right to leave the union. Again, this is a matter of settled law.
Illegitimate state governments may certainly engage in insurrections against the United States. They did so. They did so because they wanted to protect the right of their citizens to own other human beings in the same way that we own livestock. They failed.
The States, acting in their sovereign power and authority, can not be engaging in "insurrection" against the Federal government by voting to leave the Union.
A Union they voluntarily joined.
The founding fathers never even conceived of such a definition of "insurrection". Again lawfully democratically elected State governments can not commit insurrection against themselves.
So who is the federal militia being called out to protect? Federal troops "protecting" a state from its own government and citizens?
Lincoln pretended that the State governments of the South and the Southern people were somehow in "insurrection" against the real governments of the South that were somewhere else hidden from view.
It was a legal fiction necessary for him to prosecute an illegal war.
Again, it is a matter of settled law that states do not have a constitutional right to leave union. They tried. They lost. The perpetual nature of the union was established before the constitution. It is also a historical fact that the states to leave the union because they were rightly afraid that their right to own other humans was under assault.
"It is said that the Southern States left the Union to preserve slavery. How fatal the mistake! Every one ought to have known that slavery was stronger in the Union than it possibly could be out of the Union."
-B. F. Perry
"we go for Disunion because while the Union continues,
there is no hope for the slaves...with this Union, it is possible to hold 4 Million...in chains, & impossible without it; because the whole country is pledged to guard and defend slavery where it now exists."
-Garrison 1/1857
Quote within the Constitution the provision or mechanism by which a state may secede.Redbrickbear said:D. C. Bear said:Redbrickbear said:
Voting to leave the Federal Union is not a violation of the U.S. Constitution and is completely in harmony with the views of the Founding Fathers who themselves voted to leave a political union with Great Britain.
The founding fathers were well aware that what they were doing was treason against the crown and they would have to fight to get what they wanted.
And they specifically created a nation that would be more free than the one they had been apart of…
Including having the right to break off and create new systems of government/political unions when the people found it best.
90sBear said:Quote within the Constitution the provision or mechanism by which a state may secede.Redbrickbear said:D. C. Bear said:Redbrickbear said:
Voting to leave the Federal Union is not a violation of the U.S. Constitution and is completely in harmony with the views of the Founding Fathers who themselves voted to leave a political union with Great Britain.
The founding fathers were well aware that what they were doing was treason against the crown and they would have to fight to get what they wanted.
And they specifically created a nation that would be more free than the one they had been apart of…
Including having the right to break off and create new systems of government/political unions when the people found it best.
All powers not specifically given to the Federal government are retained by the people and the States.
The power to prevent a State from withdrawing from the Union was never given to the Federal government.
There is no article in the Constitution that prevents it.
No, you said they "have the right"Redbrickbear said:90sBear said:Quote within the Constitution the provision or mechanism by which a state may secede.Redbrickbear said:D. C. Bear said:Redbrickbear said:
Voting to leave the Federal Union is not a violation of the U.S. Constitution and is completely in harmony with the views of the Founding Fathers who themselves voted to leave a political union with Great Britain.
The founding fathers were well aware that what they were doing was treason against the crown and they would have to fight to get what they wanted.
And they specifically created a nation that would be more free than the one they had been apart of…
Including having the right to break off and create new systems of government/political unions when the people found it best.
All powers not specifically given to the Federal government are retained by the people and the States.
The power to prevent a State from withdrawing from the Union was never given to the Federal government.
There is no article in the Constitution that prevents it.
Quote within the Constitution the provision or mechanism by which a state may secede.
90sBear said:No, you said they "have the right"Redbrickbear said:90sBear said:Quote within the Constitution the provision or mechanism by which a state may secede.Redbrickbear said:D. C. Bear said:Redbrickbear said:
Voting to leave the Federal Union is not a violation of the U.S. Constitution and is completely in harmony with the views of the Founding Fathers who themselves voted to leave a political union with Great Britain.
The founding fathers were well aware that what they were doing was treason against the crown and they would have to fight to get what they wanted.
And they specifically created a nation that would be more free than the one they had been apart of…
Including having the right to break off and create new systems of government/political unions when the people found it best.
All powers not specifically given to the Federal government are retained by the people and the States.
The power to prevent a State from withdrawing from the Union was never given to the Federal government.
There is no article in the Constitution that prevents it.
Quote within the Constitution the provision or mechanism by which a state may secede.
States maintain all rights listed or unlisted unless specially forbidden by the US constitution.
[powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people]
Quote within the Constitution the provision or mechanism by which a state may secede.Redbrickbear said:90sBear said:No, you said they "have the right"Redbrickbear said:90sBear said:Quote within the Constitution the provision or mechanism by which a state may secede.Redbrickbear said:D. C. Bear said:Redbrickbear said:
Voting to leave the Federal Union is not a violation of the U.S. Constitution and is completely in harmony with the views of the Founding Fathers who themselves voted to leave a political union with Great Britain.
The founding fathers were well aware that what they were doing was treason against the crown and they would have to fight to get what they wanted.
And they specifically created a nation that would be more free than the one they had been apart of…
Including having the right to break off and create new systems of government/political unions when the people found it best.
All powers not specifically given to the Federal government are retained by the people and the States.
The power to prevent a State from withdrawing from the Union was never given to the Federal government.
There is no article in the Constitution that prevents it.
Quote within the Constitution the provision or mechanism by which a state may secede.
States maintain all rights listed or unlisted unless specially forbidden by the US constitution.
[powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people]
The problem is it is not stated, in either direction. It never stated they could, it never stated they could not. The two sides disagreed. One side won through force - which, throughout history, has been the most common final way to settle most legal disputes regarding who controls what land. The south had plenty of people who knew that history and what the consequences could be when it attempted to secede.
Redbrickbear said:D. C. Bear said:Redbrickbear said:D. C. Bear said:Redbrickbear said:D. C. Bear said:Redbrickbear said:D. C. Bear said:Redbrickbear said:
"But it does not follow that because there is no constitutional process set out for the secession of a State, it is obliged under all circumstances to remain in the Federal Union. There is a natural right, which is reserved by all men, and which cannot be given to any Government, and no Government can take it away. It is the natural right of a people to form a Government for their mutual protection, for the promotion of their mutual welfare, and for such other purposes as they may deem most conducive to their mutual happiness and prosperity; but if for any cause the Government so formed should become inimical to the rights and interests of the people, instead of affording protection to their persons and property, and securing the happiness and prosperity, to attain which it was established, it is the natural right of the people to change the Government regardless of Constitutions.
For be it borne in mind, the Constitution is an agreement made among the people that the Government formed by it is to be just such a Government as it prescribes; that when it recognizes a right to exist, it must protect the person in the enjoyment of that right, and when it imposes a reciprocal duty upon a portion of the people, the performance of that duty it will have enforced. When a government fails in any of these essential respects, it is not the Government the people intended it to be, and it is their right to modify or abolish it.
So, if the rights of the people of the United States as recognized by the Constitution, are not secured to them by the Government, and the people of any State have no other means to redress their grievances except by separating themselves from their oppressors, it is their undoubted natural right to do so."
It did not mean you had to do so just because I said "You can bloviate all you want."
You can't seem to ever come up with any persuasive arguments from history or from the Federal Constitution yourself…so you call all such documentation "bloviating"
At some point you are going to have to deal with facts.
Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the right to call out militia to suppress insurrections.
Supreme Court rulings confirm that I am correct as to the law.
Also, the south lost.
The Congress has the right to call the militia at the request of the State to enforce order. A State voting to withdraw from the Union is not an insurrection.
How can a State government commit insurrection against itself?
Being militarily conquered by a Federal government willing to violate the Constitution and commit war crimes against civilians does not invalidate the principal of self government and self determination.
No, not to "enforce order." Rather, Congress has the power "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions."
It was a violation of the Constitution for those southern states who attempted to leave the union to do so because there is no constitutional right to leave the union. Again, this is a matter of settled law.
Illegitimate state governments may certainly engage in insurrections against the United States. They did so. They did so because they wanted to protect the right of their citizens to own other human beings in the same way that we own livestock. They failed.
The States, acting in their sovereign power and authority, can not be engaging in "insurrection" against the Federal government by voting to leave the Union.
A Union they voluntarily joined.
The founding fathers never even conceived of such a definition of "insurrection". Again lawfully democratically elected State governments can not commit insurrection against themselves.
So who is the federal militia being called out to protect? Federal troops "protecting" a state from its own government and citizens?
Lincoln pretended that the State governments of the South and the Southern people were somehow in "insurrection" against the real governments of the South that were somewhere else hidden from view.
It was a legal fiction necessary for him to prosecute an illegal war.
Again, it is a matter of settled law that states do not have a constitutional right to leave union. They tried. They lost. The perpetual nature of the union was established before the constitution. It is also a historical fact that the states to leave the union because they were rightly afraid that their right to own other humans was under assault.
"It is said that the Southern States left the Union to preserve slavery. How fatal the mistake! Every one ought to have known that slavery was stronger in the Union than it possibly could be out of the Union."
-B. F. Perry
"we go for Disunion because while the Union continues,
there is no hope for the slaves...with this Union, it is possible to hold 4 Million...in chains, & impossible without it; because the whole country is pledged to guard and defend slavery where it now exists."
-Garrison 1/1857
Sure, they left to preserve slavery and it didn't work. Sure, They ought to have known that they had a better chance of protecting slavery within the union than losing a war against it, but they didn't and they were not wrong in thinking that slavery would not long endure within the union in any event.
90sBear said:Quote within the Constitution the provision or mechanism by which a state may secede.Redbrickbear said:90sBear said:No, you said they "have the right"Redbrickbear said:90sBear said:Quote within the Constitution the provision or mechanism by which a state may secede.Redbrickbear said:D. C. Bear said:Redbrickbear said:
Voting to leave the Federal Union is not a violation of the U.S. Constitution and is completely in harmony with the views of the Founding Fathers who themselves voted to leave a political union with Great Britain.
The founding fathers were well aware that what they were doing was treason against the crown and they would have to fight to get what they wanted.
And they specifically created a nation that would be more free than the one they had been apart of…
Including having the right to break off and create new systems of government/political unions when the people found it best.
All powers not specifically given to the Federal government are retained by the people and the States.
The power to prevent a State from withdrawing from the Union was never given to the Federal government.
There is no article in the Constitution that prevents it.
Quote within the Constitution the provision or mechanism by which a state may secede.
States maintain all rights listed or unlisted unless specially forbidden by the US constitution.
[powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people]
The problem is it is not stated, in either direction. It never stated they could, it never stated they could not. The two sides disagreed. One side won through force - which, throughout history, has been the most common final way to settle most legal disputes regarding who controls what land. The south had plenty of people who knew that history and what the consequences could be when it attempted to secede.
"'Might makes right" is something the Founders were trying to move beyond in forming a democratic Republic.
Peaceful political separation is always preferable to violent war and conquest.
But that doesn't always settle the dispute now does it? You can say it would have been nicer if there was a peaceful political separation. Would the slaves in the south have agreed? I'm sure many conquered people feel the same way. But that's just not realistic now is it.Redbrickbear said:90sBear said:Quote within the Constitution the provision or mechanism by which a state may secede.Redbrickbear said:90sBear said:No, you said they "have the right"Redbrickbear said:90sBear said:Quote within the Constitution the provision or mechanism by which a state may secede.Redbrickbear said:D. C. Bear said:Redbrickbear said:
Voting to leave the Federal Union is not a violation of the U.S. Constitution and is completely in harmony with the views of the Founding Fathers who themselves voted to leave a political union with Great Britain.
The founding fathers were well aware that what they were doing was treason against the crown and they would have to fight to get what they wanted.
And they specifically created a nation that would be more free than the one they had been apart of…
Including having the right to break off and create new systems of government/political unions when the people found it best.
All powers not specifically given to the Federal government are retained by the people and the States.
The power to prevent a State from withdrawing from the Union was never given to the Federal government.
There is no article in the Constitution that prevents it.
Quote within the Constitution the provision or mechanism by which a state may secede.
States maintain all rights listed or unlisted unless specially forbidden by the US constitution.
[powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people]
The problem is it is not stated, in either direction. It never stated they could, it never stated they could not. The two sides disagreed. One side won through force - which, throughout history, has been the most common final way to settle most legal disputes regarding who controls what land. The south had plenty of people who knew that history and what the consequences could be when it attempted to secede.
"'Might makes right" is something the Founders were trying to move beyond in forming a democratic Republic.
Peaceful political separation is always preferable to violent war and conquest.
Again, neither side had a clear cut spelled out in the Constitution legal argument. They disagreed. The North won the argument. The South knew that it could come to war. Just the way it is.
Redbrickbear said:90sBear said:Quote within the Constitution the provision or mechanism by which a state may secede.Redbrickbear said:90sBear said:No, you said they "have the right"Redbrickbear said:90sBear said:Quote within the Constitution the provision or mechanism by which a state may secede.Redbrickbear said:D. C. Bear said:Redbrickbear said:
Voting to leave the Federal Union is not a violation of the U.S. Constitution and is completely in harmony with the views of the Founding Fathers who themselves voted to leave a political union with Great Britain.
The founding fathers were well aware that what they were doing was treason against the crown and they would have to fight to get what they wanted.
And they specifically created a nation that would be more free than the one they had been apart of…
Including having the right to break off and create new systems of government/political unions when the people found it best.
All powers not specifically given to the Federal government are retained by the people and the States.
The power to prevent a State from withdrawing from the Union was never given to the Federal government.
There is no article in the Constitution that prevents it.
Quote within the Constitution the provision or mechanism by which a state may secede.
States maintain all rights listed or unlisted unless specially forbidden by the US constitution.
[powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people]
The problem is it is not stated, in either direction. It never stated they could, it never stated they could not. The two sides disagreed. One side won through force - which, throughout history, has been the most common final way to settle most legal disputes regarding who controls what land. The south had plenty of people who knew that history and what the consequences could be when it attempted to secede.
"'Might makes right" is something the Founders were trying to move beyond in forming a democratic Republic.
Peaceful political separation is always preferable to violent war and conquest.
It was not "conquest." It was the suppression of a rebellion which was carried out to protect the institution of slavery.
Eh, it could probably meet some definition of the word conquest. I realize it does typically have a different connotation as we consider the south to be part of the US, but I bet you could find some definitions that would line up close enough.D. C. Bear said:Redbrickbear said:90sBear said:Quote within the Constitution the provision or mechanism by which a state may secede.Redbrickbear said:90sBear said:No, you said they "have the right"Redbrickbear said:90sBear said:Quote within the Constitution the provision or mechanism by which a state may secede.Redbrickbear said:D. C. Bear said:Redbrickbear said:
Voting to leave the Federal Union is not a violation of the U.S. Constitution and is completely in harmony with the views of the Founding Fathers who themselves voted to leave a political union with Great Britain.
The founding fathers were well aware that what they were doing was treason against the crown and they would have to fight to get what they wanted.
And they specifically created a nation that would be more free than the one they had been apart of…
Including having the right to break off and create new systems of government/political unions when the people found it best.
All powers not specifically given to the Federal government are retained by the people and the States.
The power to prevent a State from withdrawing from the Union was never given to the Federal government.
There is no article in the Constitution that prevents it.
Quote within the Constitution the provision or mechanism by which a state may secede.
States maintain all rights listed or unlisted unless specially forbidden by the US constitution.
[powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people]
The problem is it is not stated, in either direction. It never stated they could, it never stated they could not. The two sides disagreed. One side won through force - which, throughout history, has been the most common final way to settle most legal disputes regarding who controls what land. The south had plenty of people who knew that history and what the consequences could be when it attempted to secede.
"'Might makes right" is something the Founders were trying to move beyond in forming a democratic Republic.
Peaceful political separation is always preferable to violent war and conquest.
It was not "conquest." It was the suppression of a rebellion which was carried out to protect the institution of slavery.
All I want to know is, what exactly was it that Jefferson Davis yelled in Provo to that poor Duke girl?
Malbec said:
All I want to know is, what exactly was it that Jefferson Davis yelled in Provo to that poor Duke girl?
Was it a racial slur?
Hey, actual evidence of religious bigotry ...is Dawn Staley going to cancel all games with Oregon?
Real classy chants from Oregon fans and Students. Why is it ok to chant this about members of this specific religion? @oregonfootball @OregonGovBrown @Oregonian @uoregon @CNN @espn @FOXSports @CBSNews @NBCNews @FoxNews pic.twitter.com/ukhdP1hK7x
— John Hopkins (@JohnHopkins2022) September 17, 2022
TBF, Oregon is consumed by higher priority issues, such as a petition to remove tampons from Boys' bathrooms:
https://www.oregonlive.com/education/2022/09/petition-to-remove-tampons-from-oregon-boys-bathrooms-goes-to-state-board.html
https://www.oregonlive.com/education/2022/09/petition-to-remove-tampons-from-oregon-boys-bathrooms-goes-to-state-board.html
D. C. Bear said:Redbrickbear said:90sBear said:Quote within the Constitution the provision or mechanism by which a state may secede.Redbrickbear said:90sBear said:No, you said they "have the right"Redbrickbear said:90sBear said:Quote within the Constitution the provision or mechanism by which a state may secede.Redbrickbear said:D. C. Bear said:Redbrickbear said:
Voting to leave the Federal Union is not a violation of the U.S. Constitution and is completely in harmony with the views of the Founding Fathers who themselves voted to leave a political union with Great Britain.
The founding fathers were well aware that what they were doing was treason against the crown and they would have to fight to get what they wanted.
And they specifically created a nation that would be more free than the one they had been apart of…
Including having the right to break off and create new systems of government/political unions when the people found it best.
All powers not specifically given to the Federal government are retained by the people and the States.
The power to prevent a State from withdrawing from the Union was never given to the Federal government.
There is no article in the Constitution that prevents it.
Quote within the Constitution the provision or mechanism by which a state may secede.
States maintain all rights listed or unlisted unless specially forbidden by the US constitution.
[powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people]
The problem is it is not stated, in either direction. It never stated they could, it never stated they could not. The two sides disagreed. One side won through force - which, throughout history, has been the most common final way to settle most legal disputes regarding who controls what land. The south had plenty of people who knew that history and what the consequences could be when it attempted to secede.
"'Might makes right" is something the Founders were trying to move beyond in forming a democratic Republic.
Peaceful political separation is always preferable to violent war and conquest.
It was not "conquest." It was the suppression of a rebellion which was carried out to protect the institution of slavery.
Lawful secession is not rebellion.
"From the time that this people declared its independence of Great Britain, the right of the people to self-government in its fullest and broadest extent has been a cardinal principal of American Liberty.
-J.P. Benjamin 12/31/1860
The secession of the southern states was both unlawful and foolish.
At the same time, the south was not trying to leave the union because it valued self determination or freedom or any other noble cause. They sought to leave the union because they wanted to own people. Hundreds of thousands of American lives and immense treasure was lost because they wanted to own people.
At the same time, the south was not trying to leave the union because it valued self determination or freedom or any other noble cause. They sought to leave the union because they wanted to own people. Hundreds of thousands of American lives and immense treasure was lost because they wanted to own people.
D. C. Bear said:
The secession of the southern states was both unlawful and foolish.
At the same time, the south was not trying to leave the union because it valued self determination or freedom or any other noble cause. They sought to leave the union because they wanted to own people. Hundreds of thousands of American lives and immense treasure was lost because they wanted to own people.
The voluntary democratic secession of the Southern States from the Union was lawful. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents it.
"It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties."
-Gen. Patrick Cleburne