D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Again, lots of words, little substance.
It is an undisputable fact that the south saw leaving the union as necessary to preserve the right to own other human beings in the same manner that one owns livestock. No number of words or quotes can alter that truth.

---

If the words of the leading Politicians, Presidents and Generals of the North have no substance than I don't know how to continue with any rational discussion.

---

For you to continue a rational discussion, you would have to have started a rational discussion. There has been precious little evidence of the latter.

In answering the question of why the south tried to leave the union and whether they were justified in doing so,

---

All people are justified in having political independence. The United States is a voluntary political union founded on that very idea. The American Revolution was itself a war of secession.

"the Constitution cannot be maintained nor the Union preserved, in opposition to public feeling, by the mere exertion of the coercive powers confided to the General Government. The foundations must be laid in the affections of the people..."
-President Andrew Jackson's Farewell address

"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation...to a continuance in this Union...I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.'"
- Thomas Jefferson

"If the day should ever come when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other...far better will it be for the people of the disunited States to part in friendship from each other than to be held together by constraint."
-John Q. Adams, 6th Pres

"be one of the maddest projects ever devised: no state would ever suffer itself to be used as the instrument of coercing another"
~ Alexander Hamilton

"But if the right of a state as an organized community to sever its political relations with other communities does not exist, there can be no claim of sovereignty for the state. For if political sovereignty means anything, it includes the attribute of... self-determination as to its status in respect to other sovereignties. Limitation in this attribute is fatal to the conception of sovereignty, and accordingly, the failure of secession removed one pregnant source of confusion at the very basis of our system."
-Prof Dunning

[There is no moral or ethical right to coerce a State that seeks to "alter or abolish" a supposed voluntary political association with other States. It's called self-government & the principle was clearly expressed in the original Declaration of Independence in 1776. ] -William Dunning

"When they were finally separated from Great Britain, the allegiance of their citizens was not to the Nation for there was none. It was to the States."
-President Calvin Coolidge 5/30/1924

P. Gordy (Prof at Ohio Uni) "Political Parties in the US" (1900):
"The convention framed a Constitution by the adoption of which 13 peoples, imagining themselves still independent & sovereign...They continued to think of themselves as sovereigns who indeed permitted an agent to exercise only some of their functions for them, but who had not abdicated their thrones. If the constitution had contained definite statement of the actual fact; if it had said that to adopt it was to acknowledge the sovereignty of the one American people, no part of which could sever its connections from the rest without the consent of the whole, it would probably have been rejected by every State in the Union."]

"If the Union was formed by the accession of States, then the Union may be dissolved by the secession of States."
~ Senator Daniel Webster Massachusetts, US Senate, February 15, 1833

Prof Goldwin Smith, an Advocate for the Union, said 'Few who have looked into the history can doubt that the Union originally was…a compact dissoluble perhaps at pleasure…certainly on breach of the articles of Union'
- C.F.Adams Jr.

"today, no impartial student of our constitutional history can doubt for a moment that each State ratified the form of government summited in the firm belief that at any time it could withdraw therefrom."
-C.F. Adams Jr. (Pres. AHA, Union Vet)


"When a proposition was made to authorize the Federal Gov't to make war upon a State, if necessary to the enforcement of the Federal laws, the great convention which framed the Constitution expressly denied such power." -Sen. Henry C. Burnett


"Realize the existing fact that the constituents of this Union are sovereign powers & that those sovereign powers are not mere component parts of a common empire...reason with them as you will, about the exercise of their sovereignty, but concede it. "
-Sen. James M. Mason, VA 1861 (grandson of George Mason)

"I am sworn to support the Constitution. I am NOT sworn to be true and faithful to the Central Government, as I have sworn to be true and faithful to the State of Virginia"
-James M. Mason (VA 3/1861)


"If the Declaration of Independence be true, (and who here is against it?) every community may dissolve its connection with any other community previously made, & have no other obligation than that which results from the breach of any alliance between States."

"The Southern States had rightfully the power to withdraw from the Union into which they had, as sovereign communities, voluntarily entered; that right was a violation of the letter and spirit of the compact between the States; and that war waged by the Federal Government against the seceding States was in disgrace of the limitations of the Constitution and destructive of the principles of the Declaration of Independence." Jeff Davis, Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

It's odd to see one side provide direct quotes from the men in charge at the time and be answered with middle school level historical talking points, and then attempts to say any discussion that is short of full agreement is signs that person is a racist. "You don't agree with what my junior high gym coach taught me in history?!? YOURE RACIST!"

BID

---

I haven't called anyone racist in this discussion, and my junior high gym coach didn't teach me anything other than junior high gym, so it is odd to see you make that false characterization.

Again, the south tried to leave the union because they believed that there was a real and present threat to the right to own other human beings in the same way that people own livestock. In discussing why the south tried to leave and whether they were justified in doing so, that cannot legitimately downplayed or ignored.

---

I know you didn't call anyone racist. My post was an overall observation of the entire conversation. Wish we could have ended slavery peacefully but if it took nuking Atlanta to do it I wouldn't have protested. However, this is far more nuanced than it's being framed.

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Again, lots of words, little substance.
It is an undisputable fact that the south saw leaving the union as necessary to preserve the right to own other human beings in the same manner that one owns livestock. No number of words or quotes can alter that truth.

---

If the words of the leading Politicians, Presidents and Generals of the North have no substance than I don't know how to continue with any rational discussion.

---

For you to continue a rational discussion, you would have to have started a rational discussion. There has been precious little evidence of the latter.

In answering the question of why the south tried to leave the union and whether they were justified in doing so,

---

All people are justified in having political independence. The United States is a voluntary political union founded on that very idea. The American Revolution was itself a war of secession.

"the Constitution cannot be maintained nor the Union preserved, in opposition to public feeling, by the mere exertion of the coercive powers confided to the General Government. The foundations must be laid in the affections of the people..."
-President Andrew Jackson's Farewell address

"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation...to a continuance in this Union...I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.'"
- Thomas Jefferson

"If the day should ever come when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other...far better will it be for the people of the disunited States to part in friendship from each other than to be held together by constraint."
-John Q. Adams, 6th Pres

"be one of the maddest projects ever devised: no state would ever suffer itself to be used as the instrument of coercing another"
~ Alexander Hamilton

"But if the right of a state as an organized community to sever its political relations with other communities does not exist, there can be no claim of sovereignty for the state. For if political sovereignty means anything, it includes the attribute of... self-determination as to its status in respect to other sovereignties. Limitation in this attribute is fatal to the conception of sovereignty, and accordingly, the failure of secession removed one pregnant source of confusion at the very basis of our system."
-Prof Dunning

[There is no moral or ethical right to coerce a State that seeks to "alter or abolish" a supposed voluntary political association with other States. It's called self-government & the principle was clearly expressed in the original Declaration of Independence in 1776. ] -William Dunning

"When they were finally separated from Great Britain, the allegiance of their citizens was not to the Nation for there was none. It was to the States."
-President Calvin Coolidge 5/30/1924

P. Gordy (Prof at Ohio Uni) "Political Parties in the US" (1900):
"The convention framed a Constitution by the adoption of which 13 peoples, imagining themselves still independent & sovereign...They continued to think of themselves as sovereigns who indeed permitted an agent to exercise only some of their functions for them, but who had not abdicated their thrones. If the constitution had contained definite statement of the actual fact; if it had said that to adopt it was to acknowledge the sovereignty of the one American people, no part of which could sever its connections from the rest without the consent of the whole, it would probably have been rejected by every State in the Union."]

"If the Union was formed by the accession of States, then the Union may be dissolved by the secession of States."
~ Senator Daniel Webster Massachusetts, US Senate, February 15, 1833

Prof Goldwin Smith, an Advocate for the Union, said 'Few who have looked into the history can doubt that the Union originally was…a compact dissoluble perhaps at pleasure…certainly on breach of the articles of Union'
- C.F.Adams Jr.

"today, no impartial student of our constitutional history can doubt for a moment that each State ratified the form of government summited in the firm belief that at any time it could withdraw therefrom."
-C.F. Adams Jr. (Pres. AHA, Union Vet)


"When a proposition was made to authorize the Federal Gov't to make war upon a State, if necessary to the enforcement of the Federal laws, the great convention which framed the Constitution expressly denied such power." -Sen. Henry C. Burnett


"Realize the existing fact that the constituents of this Union are sovereign powers & that those sovereign powers are not mere component parts of a common empire...reason with them as you will, about the exercise of their sovereignty, but concede it. "
-Sen. James M. Mason, VA 1861 (grandson of George Mason)

"I am sworn to support the Constitution. I am NOT sworn to be true and faithful to the Central Government, as I have sworn to be true and faithful to the State of Virginia"
-James M. Mason (VA 3/1861)


"If the Declaration of Independence be true, (and who here is against it?) every community may dissolve its connection with any other community previously made, & have no other obligation than that which results from the breach of any alliance between States."

"The Southern States had rightfully the power to withdraw from the Union into which they had, as sovereign communities, voluntarily entered; that right was a violation of the letter and spirit of the compact between the States; and that war waged by the Federal Government against the seceding States was in disgrace of the limitations of the Constitution and destructive of the principles of the Declaration of Independence." Jeff Davis, Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government.

---

1. Independent of a constitutional amendment to the contrary, there is no legal mechanism whereby states may leave the union. There wasn't then, there isn't now.

2. Southern states had no more a legal right to leave the union that the city of Hewitt would have a right to set up border posts, collect import and export tariffs, issue passports, and send an ambassador to the Court of St. James.

3. It comes as no real shock that Jefferson Davis thought states had a right to leave the union.

As with all despots who fall back on the principle of non interference in the internal affairs of other nations, arguments for "political independence" fall a little flat when that political independence is sought by those advocating its exercise primarily as a means to protect the right to own people like livestock.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Again, lots of words, little substance.
It is an undisputable fact that the south saw leaving the union as necessary to preserve the right to own other human beings in the same manner that one owns livestock. No number of words or quotes can alter that truth.

---

If the words of the leading Politicians, Presidents and Generals of the North have no substance than I don't know how to continue with any rational discussion.

---

For you to continue a rational discussion, you would have to have started a rational discussion. There has been precious little evidence of the latter.

In answering the question of why the south tried to leave the union and whether they were justified in doing so,

---

All people are justified in having political independence. The United States is a voluntary political union founded on that very idea. The American Revolution was itself a war of secession.

"the Constitution cannot be maintained nor the Union preserved, in opposition to public feeling, by the mere exertion of the coercive powers confided to the General Government. The foundations must be laid in the affections of the people..."
-President Andrew Jackson's Farewell address

"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation...to a continuance in this Union...I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.'"
- Thomas Jefferson

"If the day should ever come when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other...far better will it be for the people of the disunited States to part in friendship from each other than to be held together by constraint."
-John Q. Adams, 6th Pres

"be one of the maddest projects ever devised: no state would ever suffer itself to be used as the instrument of coercing another"
~ Alexander Hamilton

"But if the right of a state as an organized community to sever its political relations with other communities does not exist, there can be no claim of sovereignty for the state. For if political sovereignty means anything, it includes the attribute of... self-determination as to its status in respect to other sovereignties. Limitation in this attribute is fatal to the conception of sovereignty, and accordingly, the failure of secession removed one pregnant source of confusion at the very basis of our system."
-Prof Dunning

[There is no moral or ethical right to coerce a State that seeks to "alter or abolish" a supposed voluntary political association with other States. It's called self-government & the principle was clearly expressed in the original Declaration of Independence in 1776. ] -William Dunning

"When they were finally separated from Great Britain, the allegiance of their citizens was not to the Nation for there was none. It was to the States."
-President Calvin Coolidge 5/30/1924

P. Gordy (Prof at Ohio Uni) "Political Parties in the US" (1900):
"The convention framed a Constitution by the adoption of which 13 peoples, imagining themselves still independent & sovereign...They continued to think of themselves as sovereigns who indeed permitted an agent to exercise only some of their functions for them, but who had not abdicated their thrones. If the constitution had contained definite statement of the actual fact; if it had said that to adopt it was to acknowledge the sovereignty of the one American people, no part of which could sever its connections from the rest without the consent of the whole, it would probably have been rejected by every State in the Union."]

"If the Union was formed by the accession of States, then the Union may be dissolved by the secession of States."
~ Senator Daniel Webster Massachusetts, US Senate, February 15, 1833

Prof Goldwin Smith, an Advocate for the Union, said 'Few who have looked into the history can doubt that the Union originally was…a compact dissoluble perhaps at pleasure…certainly on breach of the articles of Union'
- C.F.Adams Jr.

"today, no impartial student of our constitutional history can doubt for a moment that each State ratified the form of government summited in the firm belief that at any time it could withdraw therefrom."
-C.F. Adams Jr. (Pres. AHA, Union Vet)


"When a proposition was made to authorize the Federal Gov't to make war upon a State, if necessary to the enforcement of the Federal laws, the great convention which framed the Constitution expressly denied such power." -Sen. Henry C. Burnett


"Realize the existing fact that the constituents of this Union are sovereign powers & that those sovereign powers are not mere component parts of a common empire...reason with them as you will, about the exercise of their sovereignty, but concede it. "
-Sen. James M. Mason, VA 1861 (grandson of George Mason)

"I am sworn to support the Constitution. I am NOT sworn to be true and faithful to the Central Government, as I have sworn to be true and faithful to the State of Virginia"
-James M. Mason (VA 3/1861)


"If the Declaration of Independence be true, (and who here is against it?) every community may dissolve its connection with any other community previously made, & have no other obligation than that which results from the breach of any alliance between States."

"The Southern States had rightfully the power to withdraw from the Union into which they had, as sovereign communities, voluntarily entered; that right was a violation of the letter and spirit of the compact between the States; and that war waged by the Federal Government against the seceding States was in disgrace of the limitations of the Constitution and destructive of the principles of the Declaration of Independence." Jeff Davis, Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government.

---

1. Independent of a constitutional amendment to the contrary, there is no legal mechanism whereby states may leave the union. There wasn't then, there isn't now.

2. Southern states had no more a legal right to leave the union that the city of Hewitt would have a right to set up border posts, collect import and export tariffs, issue passports, and send an ambassador to the Court of St. James.

3. It comes as no real shock that Jefferson Davis thought states had a right to leave the union.

As with all despots who fall back on the principle of non interference in the internal affairs of other nations, arguments for "political independence" fall a little flat when that political independence is sought by those advocating its exercise primarily as a means to protect the right to own people like livestock.

---

1. What part of; "The powers NOT (specifically) 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", do you not understand? The States had the right to enter a voluntary political union and they had the the right to withdraw from it.

Saying they needed an additional constitutional amendment for that purpose is simply coming up with an excuse to prevent it.

2. The States are sovereign political communities that created the United States Federal Union. A single small city did not do that and has never had the same kind of sovereignty under English later American law.

[Not only do States retain sovereignty under the Constitution, there is also a "fundamental principle of equal (emphasis added) sovereignty" among the States. Over a hundred years ago, this Court explained that our Nation "was and is a union of States, equal in power, dignity and authority." Indeed, "the constitutional equality of the States is essential to the harmonious operation of the scheme upon which the Republic was organized."] Chief Justice Roberts et al, 2013 (+ justices) County v. Holder, June 25,

3. You don't even attempt to engage with the substance of of what Davis said....because you can't....and ignore the quotes by the all the other important people who were not Jeff Davis that I gave you.

As to the point about non-interference in internal affairs well in fact;

[non interference in the internal affairs of other nations is a UN bedrock idea and in international law. "Such intervention is prohibited by the United Nations Charter (Art. 2.7), under the principle of non-intervention, or non-interference, which posits that States should not "intervene in matters to preserve the independence of weaker states against the interventions and pressures of more powerful ones." This concept is presented as the basis for international relations and therefore applies to interstate relations...International law recognizes only one "right of intervention" into a State's internal affairs; it is set forth and limited in Chapter VII of the UN Charter. This right is thus entrusted to the UN Security Council when a State's behavior can be construed as a threat to international peace and security. In such a case, the Council can undertake a series of measures"]


https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/content/article/3/intervention/

For some strange reason you might not like non-intervention and non-interference but it is a bed rock principle in international relations.

If a man makes the statement "The [Continental] Congress thus assembled exercised de facto & de jure sovereign authority..." Such a statement could come only from one who had not read the instructions of the delegates, or the journal of this Congress's proceedings."
-Tyne

"The Constitution was to form a gov't for such States as should unite; it had no application beyond those who should voluntarily adopt it. Among the delegated powers there is none which interferes with the exercise of the right of secession by a State."

[There was no provision in U.S. Constitution prohibits state from seceding from union made clear by proposal at 1787 Constitutional Convention to grant new federal government specific power to suppress a seceding state.
Today, no impartial student of our constitutional history can doubt for a moment that each State ratified the form of government summited in the firm belief that at any time it could withdraw therefrom."
-Charles F. Adams Jr. (Pres. AHA, Union Vet)

"The Supreme Court had maintained an unbroken line of precedents on the double sovereignty basis. It has asserted the supremacy of the federal laws, only so far as they were within the limited powers granted in the Constitution."
-Dunning (President of the AHA)

"Whenever our national legislature [Congress] is led to over leap the prescribed bounds of their constitutional powers...it becomes their [State authorities] duty, to interpose their protecting shield between the right & liberty of the people, & the assumed power of the General Government. Even to the point of withdrawing from the Union.
-Gov. Trumbull (CT 1/23/1809)

"Without descending to particulars, it may be safely asserted that the power to make war against a State is at variance with the whole spirit and intent of the Constitution. Suppose a war should result in the conquest of a State, how are we to govern it afterward? Shall we hold it as a province, and govern it by despotic power? In the nature of things, we could not, by physical force control the will of the people and compel them to elect Senators and Reps to Congress, and to preform all the other duties depending upon their own volition and required for the free citizens of a free State as a constituent member of the Confederacy. But, if we possessed this power, would it be wise to exercise it under existing circumstances? The object would, doubtless, be to preserve the Union. War would not only present the most effectual means of destroying it, but would near banish all hope of its peaceable reconstruction. Besides, in the fraternal conflict a vast amount of blood and treasure would be expended, rendering future reconciliation between the States near impossible. In the meantime, who can foretell what would be the sufferings and privations of the people during its existence? The fact is, that our Union rests upon free public opinion, and can never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in a civil war. If it cannot live in the affections of the people, it must one day perish. Congress possesses many means of preserving it by conciliation; but the sword was not placed in the heir hands to preserve it by force." -President James Buchanan 1861 ('National history of the War for the Union: Civil, Military and Naval, by E.A. Duyckinck, New York; Johnson, Fry and Comp. page 31)

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Again, lots of words, little substance.
It is an undisputable fact that the south saw leaving the union as necessary to preserve the right to own other human beings in the same manner that one owns livestock. No number of words or quotes can alter that truth.

---

If the words of the leading Politicians, Presidents and Generals of the North have no substance than I don't know how to continue with any rational discussion.

---

For you to continue a rational discussion, you would have to have started a rational discussion. There has been precious little evidence of the latter.

In answering the question of why the south tried to leave the union and whether they were justified in doing so,

---

All people are justified in having political independence. The United States is a voluntary political union founded on that very idea. The American Revolution was itself a war of secession.

"the Constitution cannot be maintained nor the Union preserved, in opposition to public feeling, by the mere exertion of the coercive powers confided to the General Government. The foundations must be laid in the affections of the people..."
-President Andrew Jackson's Farewell address

"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation...to a continuance in this Union...I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.'"
- Thomas Jefferson

"If the day should ever come when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other...far better will it be for the people of the disunited States to part in friendship from each other than to be held together by constraint."
-John Q. Adams, 6th Pres

"be one of the maddest projects ever devised: no state would ever suffer itself to be used as the instrument of coercing another"
~ Alexander Hamilton

"But if the right of a state as an organized community to sever its political relations with other communities does not exist, there can be no claim of sovereignty for the state. For if political sovereignty means anything, it includes the attribute of... self-determination as to its status in respect to other sovereignties. Limitation in this attribute is fatal to the conception of sovereignty, and accordingly, the failure of secession removed one pregnant source of confusion at the very basis of our system."
-Prof Dunning

[There is no moral or ethical right to coerce a State that seeks to "alter or abolish" a supposed voluntary political association with other States. It's called self-government & the principle was clearly expressed in the original Declaration of Independence in 1776. ] -William Dunning

"When they were finally separated from Great Britain, the allegiance of their citizens was not to the Nation for there was none. It was to the States."
-President Calvin Coolidge 5/30/1924

P. Gordy (Prof at Ohio Uni) "Political Parties in the US" (1900):
"The convention framed a Constitution by the adoption of which 13 peoples, imagining themselves still independent & sovereign...They continued to think of themselves as sovereigns who indeed permitted an agent to exercise only some of their functions for them, but who had not abdicated their thrones. If the constitution had contained definite statement of the actual fact; if it had said that to adopt it was to acknowledge the sovereignty of the one American people, no part of which could sever its connections from the rest without the consent of the whole, it would probably have been rejected by every State in the Union."]

"If the Union was formed by the accession of States, then the Union may be dissolved by the secession of States."
~ Senator Daniel Webster Massachusetts, US Senate, February 15, 1833

Prof Goldwin Smith, an Advocate for the Union, said 'Few who have looked into the history can doubt that the Union originally was…a compact dissoluble perhaps at pleasure…certainly on breach of the articles of Union'
- C.F.Adams Jr.

"today, no impartial student of our constitutional history can doubt for a moment that each State ratified the form of government summited in the firm belief that at any time it could withdraw therefrom."
-C.F. Adams Jr. (Pres. AHA, Union Vet)


"When a proposition was made to authorize the Federal Gov't to make war upon a State, if necessary to the enforcement of the Federal laws, the great convention which framed the Constitution expressly denied such power." -Sen. Henry C. Burnett


"Realize the existing fact that the constituents of this Union are sovereign powers & that those sovereign powers are not mere component parts of a common empire...reason with them as you will, about the exercise of their sovereignty, but concede it. "
-Sen. James M. Mason, VA 1861 (grandson of George Mason)

"I am sworn to support the Constitution. I am NOT sworn to be true and faithful to the Central Government, as I have sworn to be true and faithful to the State of Virginia"
-James M. Mason (VA 3/1861)


"If the Declaration of Independence be true, (and who here is against it?) every community may dissolve its connection with any other community previously made, & have no other obligation than that which results from the breach of any alliance between States."

"The Southern States had rightfully the power to withdraw from the Union into which they had, as sovereign communities, voluntarily entered; that right was a violation of the letter and spirit of the compact between the States; and that war waged by the Federal Government against the seceding States was in disgrace of the limitations of the Constitution and destructive of the principles of the Declaration of Independence." Jeff Davis, Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government.

---

1. Independent of a constitutional amendment to the contrary, there is no legal mechanism whereby states may leave the union. There wasn't then, there isn't now.

2. Southern states had no more a legal right to leave the union that the city of Hewitt would have a right to set up border posts, collect import and export tariffs, issue passports, and send an ambassador to the Court of St. James.

3. It comes as no real shock that Jefferson Davis thought states had a right to leave the union.

As with all despots who fall back on the principle of non interference in the internal affairs of other nations, arguments for "political independence" fall a little flat when that political independence is sought by those advocating its exercise primarily as a means to protect the right to own people like livestock.

---

1. What part of; "The powers NOT (specifically) 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", do you not understand? The States had the right to enter a voluntary political union and they had the the right to withdraw from it.

Saying they needed an additional constitutional amendment for that purpose it coming up with an excuse to prevent it.

2. The States are sovereign political communities that created the United States Federal Union. A single small city did not do that and has never had the same kind of sovereignty under English later American law.

3. You don't even attempt to engage with the substance of of what Davis said....because you can't....and ignore the quotes by the all the other important people who were not Jeff Davis that I gave you.

As to the point about non-interference in internal affairs well in fact;

[non interference in the internal affairs of other nations is a UN bedrock idea and in international law. "Such intervention is prohibited by the United Nations Charter (Art. 2.7), under the principle of non-intervention, or non-interference, which posits that States should not "intervene in matters to preserve the independence of weaker states against the interventions and pressures of more powerful ones." This concept is presented as the basis for international relations and therefore applies to interstate relations...International law recognizes only one "right of intervention" into a State's internal affairs; it is set forth and limited in Chapter VII of the UN Charter. This right is thus entrusted to the UN Security Council when a State's behavior can be construed as a threat to international peace and security. In such a case, the Council can undertake a series of measures"]


https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/content/article/3/intervention/

---

Yes, non interference in the internal affairs of other nations is a long held ideal. It is also used by tyrannical dictators as a response to criticism by other nations of their tyranny in much the same way that southern politicians in the United States sought to use the principle of political independence as a means to defend people owning other people in the same manner that people own livestock.

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that states do not have the right to leave the union. The United States was formed as a perpetual union, and that was never changed. As a practical matter, however, the question was settled at Appomattox. Had the south won, they could have continued to own people in the manner of livestock for a longer time.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Again, lots of words, little substance.
It is an undisputable fact that the south saw leaving the union as necessary to preserve the right to own other human beings in the same manner that one owns livestock. No number of words or quotes can alter that truth.

---

If the words of the leading Politicians, Presidents and Generals of the North have no substance than I don't know how to continue with any rational discussion.

---

For you to continue a rational discussion, you would have to have started a rational discussion. There has been precious little evidence of the latter.

In answering the question of why the south tried to leave the union and whether they were justified in doing so,

---

All people are justified in having political independence. The United States is a voluntary political union founded on that very idea. The American Revolution was itself a war of secession.

"the Constitution cannot be maintained nor the Union preserved, in opposition to public feeling, by the mere exertion of the coercive powers confided to the General Government. The foundations must be laid in the affections of the people..."
-President Andrew Jackson's Farewell address

"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation...to a continuance in this Union...I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.'"
- Thomas Jefferson

"If the day should ever come when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other...far better will it be for the people of the disunited States to part in friendship from each other than to be held together by constraint."
-John Q. Adams, 6th Pres

"be one of the maddest projects ever devised: no state would ever suffer itself to be used as the instrument of coercing another"
~ Alexander Hamilton

"But if the right of a state as an organized community to sever its political relations with other communities does not exist, there can be no claim of sovereignty for the state. For if political sovereignty means anything, it includes the attribute of... self-determination as to its status in respect to other sovereignties. Limitation in this attribute is fatal to the conception of sovereignty, and accordingly, the failure of secession removed one pregnant source of confusion at the very basis of our system."
-Prof Dunning

[There is no moral or ethical right to coerce a State that seeks to "alter or abolish" a supposed voluntary political association with other States. It's called self-government & the principle was clearly expressed in the original Declaration of Independence in 1776. ] -William Dunning

"When they were finally separated from Great Britain, the allegiance of their citizens was not to the Nation for there was none. It was to the States."
-President Calvin Coolidge 5/30/1924

P. Gordy (Prof at Ohio Uni) "Political Parties in the US" (1900):
"The convention framed a Constitution by the adoption of which 13 peoples, imagining themselves still independent & sovereign...They continued to think of themselves as sovereigns who indeed permitted an agent to exercise only some of their functions for them, but who had not abdicated their thrones. If the constitution had contained definite statement of the actual fact; if it had said that to adopt it was to acknowledge the sovereignty of the one American people, no part of which could sever its connections from the rest without the consent of the whole, it would probably have been rejected by every State in the Union."]

"If the Union was formed by the accession of States, then the Union may be dissolved by the secession of States."
~ Senator Daniel Webster Massachusetts, US Senate, February 15, 1833

Prof Goldwin Smith, an Advocate for the Union, said 'Few who have looked into the history can doubt that the Union originally was…a compact dissoluble perhaps at pleasure…certainly on breach of the articles of Union'
- C.F.Adams Jr.

"today, no impartial student of our constitutional history can doubt for a moment that each State ratified the form of government summited in the firm belief that at any time it could withdraw therefrom."
-C.F. Adams Jr. (Pres. AHA, Union Vet)


"When a proposition was made to authorize the Federal Gov't to make war upon a State, if necessary to the enforcement of the Federal laws, the great convention which framed the Constitution expressly denied such power." -Sen. Henry C. Burnett


"Realize the existing fact that the constituents of this Union are sovereign powers & that those sovereign powers are not mere component parts of a common empire...reason with them as you will, about the exercise of their sovereignty, but concede it. "
-Sen. James M. Mason, VA 1861 (grandson of George Mason)

"I am sworn to support the Constitution. I am NOT sworn to be true and faithful to the Central Government, as I have sworn to be true and faithful to the State of Virginia"
-James M. Mason (VA 3/1861)


"If the Declaration of Independence be true, (and who here is against it?) every community may dissolve its connection with any other community previously made, & have no other obligation than that which results from the breach of any alliance between States."

"The Southern States had rightfully the power to withdraw from the Union into which they had, as sovereign communities, voluntarily entered; that right was a violation of the letter and spirit of the compact between the States; and that war waged by the Federal Government against the seceding States was in disgrace of the limitations of the Constitution and destructive of the principles of the Declaration of Independence." Jeff Davis, Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government.

---

1. Independent of a constitutional amendment to the contrary, there is no legal mechanism whereby states may leave the union. There wasn't then, there isn't now.

2. Southern states had no more a legal right to leave the union that the city of Hewitt would have a right to set up border posts, collect import and export tariffs, issue passports, and send an ambassador to the Court of St. James.

3. It comes as no real shock that Jefferson Davis thought states had a right to leave the union.

As with all despots who fall back on the principle of non interference in the internal affairs of other nations, arguments for "political independence" fall a little flat when that political independence is sought by those advocating its exercise primarily as a means to protect the right to own people like livestock.

---

1. What part of; "The powers NOT (specifically) 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", do you not understand? The States had the right to enter a voluntary political union and they had the the right to withdraw from it.

Saying they needed an additional constitutional amendment for that purpose it coming up with an excuse to prevent it.

2. The States are sovereign political communities that created the United States Federal Union. A single small city did not do that and has never had the same kind of sovereignty under English later American law.

3. You don't even attempt to engage with the substance of of what Davis said....because you can't....and ignore the quotes by the all the other important people who were not Jeff Davis that I gave you.

As to the point about non-interference in internal affairs well in fact;

[non interference in the internal affairs of other nations is a UN bedrock idea and in international law. "Such intervention is prohibited by the United Nations Charter (Art. 2.7), under the principle of non-intervention, or non-interference, which posits that States should not "intervene in matters to preserve the independence of weaker states against the interventions and pressures of more powerful ones." This concept is presented as the basis for international relations and therefore applies to interstate relations...International law recognizes only one "right of intervention" into a State's internal affairs; it is set forth and limited in Chapter VII of the UN Charter. This right is thus entrusted to the UN Security Council when a State's behavior can be construed as a threat to international peace and security. In such a case, the Council can undertake a series of measures"]


https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/content/article/3/intervention/

---

Yes, non interference in the internal affairs of other nations is a long held ideal. It is also used by tyrannical dictators as a response to criticism by other nations of their tyranny in much the same way that southern politicians in the United States sought to use the principle of political independence as a means to defend people owning other people in the same manner that people own livestock.

---

You again show a massive distained for non-interference in international law and internal affairs.

And you can not argue the Constitutional validity of secession or the legally for forceful war against States by the Central government. So you have had to rely for several pages on an extremely narrow argument. That the fact that the Southern States owned slaves (right or wrong a Constitutional right at the time under United States Law) as the entire premise for why this should have undermined their right to political independence.

The States that would form the United States had legal slavery (including Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey) were they justified in declaring their independence from Great Britain?

Brazil had legal slavery was it justified in declaring its independence from Portugal?

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Again, lots of words, little substance.
It is an undisputable fact that the south saw leaving the union as necessary to preserve the right to own other human beings in the same manner that one owns livestock. No number of words or quotes can alter that truth.

---

If the words of the leading Politicians, Presidents and Generals of the North have no substance than I don't know how to continue with any rational discussion.

---

For you to continue a rational discussion, you would have to have started a rational discussion. There has been precious little evidence of the latter.

In answering the question of why the south tried to leave the union and whether they were justified in doing so,

---

All people are justified in having political independence. The United States is a voluntary political union founded on that very idea. The American Revolution was itself a war of secession.

"the Constitution cannot be maintained nor the Union preserved, in opposition to public feeling, by the mere exertion of the coercive powers confided to the General Government. The foundations must be laid in the affections of the people..."
-President Andrew Jackson's Farewell address

"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation...to a continuance in this Union...I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.'"
- Thomas Jefferson

"If the day should ever come when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other...far better will it be for the people of the disunited States to part in friendship from each other than to be held together by constraint."
-John Q. Adams, 6th Pres

"be one of the maddest projects ever devised: no state would ever suffer itself to be used as the instrument of coercing another"
~ Alexander Hamilton

"But if the right of a state as an organized community to sever its political relations with other communities does not exist, there can be no claim of sovereignty for the state. For if political sovereignty means anything, it includes the attribute of... self-determination as to its status in respect to other sovereignties. Limitation in this attribute is fatal to the conception of sovereignty, and accordingly, the failure of secession removed one pregnant source of confusion at the very basis of our system."
-Prof Dunning

[There is no moral or ethical right to coerce a State that seeks to "alter or abolish" a supposed voluntary political association with other States. It's called self-government & the principle was clearly expressed in the original Declaration of Independence in 1776. ] -William Dunning

"When they were finally separated from Great Britain, the allegiance of their citizens was not to the Nation for there was none. It was to the States."
-President Calvin Coolidge 5/30/1924

P. Gordy (Prof at Ohio Uni) "Political Parties in the US" (1900):
"The convention framed a Constitution by the adoption of which 13 peoples, imagining themselves still independent & sovereign...They continued to think of themselves as sovereigns who indeed permitted an agent to exercise only some of their functions for them, but who had not abdicated their thrones. If the constitution had contained definite statement of the actual fact; if it had said that to adopt it was to acknowledge the sovereignty of the one American people, no part of which could sever its connections from the rest without the consent of the whole, it would probably have been rejected by every State in the Union."]

"If the Union was formed by the accession of States, then the Union may be dissolved by the secession of States."
~ Senator Daniel Webster Massachusetts, US Senate, February 15, 1833

Prof Goldwin Smith, an Advocate for the Union, said 'Few who have looked into the history can doubt that the Union originally was…a compact dissoluble perhaps at pleasure…certainly on breach of the articles of Union'
- C.F.Adams Jr.

"today, no impartial student of our constitutional history can doubt for a moment that each State ratified the form of government summited in the firm belief that at any time it could withdraw therefrom."
-C.F. Adams Jr. (Pres. AHA, Union Vet)


"When a proposition was made to authorize the Federal Gov't to make war upon a State, if necessary to the enforcement of the Federal laws, the great convention which framed the Constitution expressly denied such power." -Sen. Henry C. Burnett


"Realize the existing fact that the constituents of this Union are sovereign powers & that those sovereign powers are not mere component parts of a common empire...reason with them as you will, about the exercise of their sovereignty, but concede it. "
-Sen. James M. Mason, VA 1861 (grandson of George Mason)

"I am sworn to support the Constitution. I am NOT sworn to be true and faithful to the Central Government, as I have sworn to be true and faithful to the State of Virginia"
-James M. Mason (VA 3/1861)


"If the Declaration of Independence be true, (and who here is against it?) every community may dissolve its connection with any other community previously made, & have no other obligation than that which results from the breach of any alliance between States."

"The Southern States had rightfully the power to withdraw from the Union into which they had, as sovereign communities, voluntarily entered; that right was a violation of the letter and spirit of the compact between the States; and that war waged by the Federal Government against the seceding States was in disgrace of the limitations of the Constitution and destructive of the principles of the Declaration of Independence." Jeff Davis, Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government.

---

1. Independent of a constitutional amendment to the contrary, there is no legal mechanism whereby states may leave the union. There wasn't then, there isn't now.

2. Southern states had no more a legal right to leave the union that the city of Hewitt would have a right to set up border posts, collect import and export tariffs, issue passports, and send an ambassador to the Court of St. James.

3. It comes as no real shock that Jefferson Davis thought states had a right to leave the union.

As with all despots who fall back on the principle of non interference in the internal affairs of other nations, arguments for "political independence" fall a little flat when that political independence is sought by those advocating its exercise primarily as a means to protect the right to own people like livestock.

---

1. What part of; "The powers NOT (specifically) 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", do you not understand? The States had the right to enter a voluntary political union and they had the the right to withdraw from it.

Saying they needed an additional constitutional amendment for that purpose it coming up with an excuse to prevent it.

2. The States are sovereign political communities that created the United States Federal Union. A single small city did not do that and has never had the same kind of sovereignty under English later American law.

3. You don't even attempt to engage with the substance of of what Davis said....because you can't....and ignore the quotes by the all the other important people who were not Jeff Davis that I gave you.

As to the point about non-interference in internal affairs well in fact;

[non interference in the internal affairs of other nations is a UN bedrock idea and in international law. "Such intervention is prohibited by the United Nations Charter (Art. 2.7), under the principle of non-intervention, or non-interference, which posits that States should not "intervene in matters to preserve the independence of weaker states against the interventions and pressures of more powerful ones." This concept is presented as the basis for international relations and therefore applies to interstate relations...International law recognizes only one "right of intervention" into a State's internal affairs; it is set forth and limited in Chapter VII of the UN Charter. This right is thus entrusted to the UN Security Council when a State's behavior can be construed as a threat to international peace and security. In such a case, the Council can undertake a series of measures"]


https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/content/article/3/intervention/

---

The United States was formed as a perpetual union, and that was never changed.

---

Again, I have shown you repeatedly that that was not factually true.

Yet you refuse to accept historical reality.

[Prof Goldwin Smith, an Advocate for the Union, said 'Few who have looked into the history can doubt that the Union originally was…a compact dissoluble perhaps at pleasure…certainly on breach of the articles of Union']
- C.F.Adams Jr.

"today, no impartial student of our constitutional history can doubt for a moment that each State ratified the form of government summited in the firm belief that at any time it could withdraw therefrom."
-C.F. Adams Jr. (Pres. AHA, Union Vet)

"In 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was to form a more perfect Union, but the term perpetual union or unbreakable union was never used by the delegates. The purpose of the former document was not only to define the relationship among the new states but also to stipulate the permanent nature of the new union's government. It was completely silent on the question of if such a union of states was dissolvable."

"Buchanan argued that the right to withdraw from the Union was complemented by the right not to be coerced by the national government, because the framers had rejected the existence of such power at the Constitutional Convention."

"But if the right of a state as an organized community to sever its political relations with other communities does not exist, there can be no claim of sovereignty for the state. For if political sovereignty means anything, it includes the attribute of... self-determination as to its status in respect to other sovereignties. Limitation in this attribute is fatal to the conception of sovereignty" -Prof Dunning

[there was no provision in U.S. Constitution prohibits state from seceding from union made clear by proposal at 1787 Constitutional Convention to grant new federal government specific power to suppress a seceding state. "today, no impartial student of our constitutional history can doubt for a moment that each State ratified the form of government summited in the firm belief that at any time it could withdraw therefrom."
-Charles F. Adams Jr. (Pres. AHA, Union Vet)

"where among the delegated grants of power to the Fed Gov't do you find any power to coerce a State; where among the provisions of the Constitution do you find any prohibition on the part of a State to withdraw...if it was not prohibited by the States; it necessarily remains"

"If secession had been expressly forbidden in the United States Constitution, no State would have signed it."
-Prof J. P. Gordy, "Political Parties in the United States" (1900).

[John Rutledge stated during the Philadelphia Convention that a prospective federal veto over State law would and ought to "damn" the Constitution]

"When they were finally separated from Great Britain, the allegiance of their citizens was not to the Nation for there was none. It was to the States."
-President Calvin Coolidge 5/30/1924

"To argue that a man who follows the mandate of his State, resuming her sovereign jurisdiction & power, is disloyal to his allegiance to the US, which allegiance he only owed through his State, is such a confusion of ideas as does not belong to an ordinary comprehension of our Gov."

"This Union must be a voluntary one, and not compulsory. A Union upheld by force would be despotism."
-William H. Seward (in Cleveland, 1844)

"Madison said, in the event that a State were disposed to renounce its allegiance to the Federal Gov't, this clause of the Constitution was so restrictive that it would afford a protection to people who might take that course."
- Sen. Henry Burnett

Wangchung said:

---

It's odd to see one side provide direct quotes from the men in charge at the time and be answered with middle school level historical talking points, and then attempts to say any discussion that is short of full agreement is signs that person is a racist. "You don't agree with what my junior high gym coach taught me in history?!? YOURE RACIST!"

BID

---

Quotes don't prove anything.

People say things all the time.... like the claim that started this thread.

Can I then provide that quote the Duke player made as "evidence"????

No because it was just words. The facts stand for themselves.

Sorry but ANYONE that defends slavery or the south fighting to keep slavery is racist. plain and simple. That isn't calling names. It is stating facts.

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Again, lots of words, little substance.
It is an undisputable fact that the south saw leaving the union as necessary to preserve the right to own other human beings in the same manner that one owns livestock. No number of words or quotes can alter that truth.

---

If the words of the leading Politicians, Presidents and Generals of the North have no substance than I don't know how to continue with any rational discussion.

---

For you to continue a rational discussion, you would have to have started a rational discussion. There has been precious little evidence of the latter.

In answering the question of why the south tried to leave the union and whether they were justified in doing so,

---

All people are justified in having political independence. The United States is a voluntary political union founded on that very idea. The American Revolution was itself a war of secession.

"the Constitution cannot be maintained nor the Union preserved, in opposition to public feeling, by the mere exertion of the coercive powers confided to the General Government. The foundations must be laid in the affections of the people..."
-President Andrew Jackson's Farewell address

"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation...to a continuance in this Union...I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.'"
- Thomas Jefferson

"If the day should ever come when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other...far better will it be for the people of the disunited States to part in friendship from each other than to be held together by constraint."
-John Q. Adams, 6th Pres

"be one of the maddest projects ever devised: no state would ever suffer itself to be used as the instrument of coercing another"
~ Alexander Hamilton

"But if the right of a state as an organized community to sever its political relations with other communities does not exist, there can be no claim of sovereignty for the state. For if political sovereignty means anything, it includes the attribute of... self-determination as to its status in respect to other sovereignties. Limitation in this attribute is fatal to the conception of sovereignty, and accordingly, the failure of secession removed one pregnant source of confusion at the very basis of our system."
-Prof Dunning

[There is no moral or ethical right to coerce a State that seeks to "alter or abolish" a supposed voluntary political association with other States. It's called self-government & the principle was clearly expressed in the original Declaration of Independence in 1776. ] -William Dunning

"When they were finally separated from Great Britain, the allegiance of their citizens was not to the Nation for there was none. It was to the States."
-President Calvin Coolidge 5/30/1924

P. Gordy (Prof at Ohio Uni) "Political Parties in the US" (1900):
"The convention framed a Constitution by the adoption of which 13 peoples, imagining themselves still independent & sovereign...They continued to think of themselves as sovereigns who indeed permitted an agent to exercise only some of their functions for them, but who had not abdicated their thrones. If the constitution had contained definite statement of the actual fact; if it had said that to adopt it was to acknowledge the sovereignty of the one American people, no part of which could sever its connections from the rest without the consent of the whole, it would probably have been rejected by every State in the Union."]

"If the Union was formed by the accession of States, then the Union may be dissolved by the secession of States."
~ Senator Daniel Webster Massachusetts, US Senate, February 15, 1833

Prof Goldwin Smith, an Advocate for the Union, said 'Few who have looked into the history can doubt that the Union originally was…a compact dissoluble perhaps at pleasure…certainly on breach of the articles of Union'
- C.F.Adams Jr.

"today, no impartial student of our constitutional history can doubt for a moment that each State ratified the form of government summited in the firm belief that at any time it could withdraw therefrom."
-C.F. Adams Jr. (Pres. AHA, Union Vet)


"When a proposition was made to authorize the Federal Gov't to make war upon a State, if necessary to the enforcement of the Federal laws, the great convention which framed the Constitution expressly denied such power." -Sen. Henry C. Burnett


"Realize the existing fact that the constituents of this Union are sovereign powers & that those sovereign powers are not mere component parts of a common empire...reason with them as you will, about the exercise of their sovereignty, but concede it. "
-Sen. James M. Mason, VA 1861 (grandson of George Mason)

"I am sworn to support the Constitution. I am NOT sworn to be true and faithful to the Central Government, as I have sworn to be true and faithful to the State of Virginia"
-James M. Mason (VA 3/1861)


"If the Declaration of Independence be true, (and who here is against it?) every community may dissolve its connection with any other community previously made, & have no other obligation than that which results from the breach of any alliance between States."

"The Southern States had rightfully the power to withdraw from the Union into which they had, as sovereign communities, voluntarily entered; that right was a violation of the letter and spirit of the compact between the States; and that war waged by the Federal Government against the seceding States was in disgrace of the limitations of the Constitution and destructive of the principles of the Declaration of Independence." Jeff Davis, Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government.

---

1. Independent of a constitutional amendment to the contrary, there is no legal mechanism whereby states may leave the union. There wasn't then, there isn't now.

2. Southern states had no more a legal right to leave the union that the city of Hewitt would have a right to set up border posts, collect import and export tariffs, issue passports, and send an ambassador to the Court of St. James.

3. It comes as no real shock that Jefferson Davis thought states had a right to leave the union.

As with all despots who fall back on the principle of non interference in the internal affairs of other nations, arguments for "political independence" fall a little flat when that political independence is sought by those advocating its exercise primarily as a means to protect the right to own people like livestock.

---

1. What part of; "The powers NOT (specifically) 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", do you not understand? The States had the right to enter a voluntary political union and they had the the right to withdraw from it.

Saying they needed an additional constitutional amendment for that purpose it coming up with an excuse to prevent it.

2. The States are sovereign political communities that created the United States Federal Union. A single small city did not do that and has never had the same kind of sovereignty under English later American law.

3. You don't even attempt to engage with the substance of of what Davis said....because you can't....and ignore the quotes by the all the other important people who were not Jeff Davis that I gave you.

As to the point about non-interference in internal affairs well in fact;

[non interference in the internal affairs of other nations is a UN bedrock idea and in international law. "Such intervention is prohibited by the United Nations Charter (Art. 2.7), under the principle of non-intervention, or non-interference, which posits that States should not "intervene in matters to preserve the independence of weaker states against the interventions and pressures of more powerful ones." This concept is presented as the basis for international relations and therefore applies to interstate relations...International law recognizes only one "right of intervention" into a State's internal affairs; it is set forth and limited in Chapter VII of the UN Charter. This right is thus entrusted to the UN Security Council when a State's behavior can be construed as a threat to international peace and security. In such a case, the Council can undertake a series of measures"]


https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/content/article/3/intervention/

---

Yes, non interference in the internal affairs of other nations is a long held ideal. It is also used by tyrannical dictators as a response to criticism by other nations of their tyranny in much the same way that southern politicians in the United States sought to use the principle of political independence as a means to defend people owning other people in the same manner that people own livestock.

---

You again show a massive distained for non-interference in international law and internal affairs.

And you can not argue the Constitutional validity of secession or the legally for forceful war against States by the Central government. So you have had to rely for several pages on an extremely narrow argument. That the fact that the Southern States owned slaves (right or wrong a Constitutional right at the time under United States Law) as the entire premise for why this should have undermined their right to political independence.

The States that would form the United States had legal slavery (including Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey) were they justified in declaring their independence from Great Britain?

Brazil had legal slavery was it justified in declaring its independence from Portugal?

---

I have a great deal of respect for principles of non interference in other nations internal affairs. I also understand that there are limits.

Slavery was legal at the time of the south's attempt to leave the union, but they saw that it would not always be so and that is why they tried to leave.

The union was set up as a perpetual union, and among the enumerated powers given to Congress is the ability to call militias specifically to suppress insurrections.

We were not justified in declaring independence from Great Britain until we won a war against them and they signed a treaty saying we had our independence. Had we lost, it was just a failed rebellion and our leaders would have been legally executed for treason. We did not have the right under British law to claim independence. Southern states did not have the right under U.S. law to claim independence. We beat the British, thankfully. The south failed in its attempt to preserve slavery through leaving the union, thankfully.

I had to scroll back to the OP.. and yep... this thread has NOTHING to do with the Civil War.

Why do stupid people continue to bring up the Civil War, whenever there is a race incident? It was well over 100 years ago. No one alive today has any memory of it, or even talked with someone who lived through it.

It is totally irrelevant to the situation at hand. I'm sure it was a fun distraction for some of you to debate the merits of the North or South... but it is totally irrelevant to the BYU vs Duke game.

This is a thread about one simple thing... people continue to make-up racial incidences... and we had another race hoax just last week at BYU.

Stop believing these stupid allegations, and start treating them with the critical skepticism that they CLEARLY deserve. Stop believing these moronic BLM people... they are just liars. The only racist in this entire story, is the god-mother who started the entire viral hoax on social media. SHE is the racist who needs to be cancelled... but she wants your vote so she can become a judge. Just let that sink in for a minute. She is a liar and a racist, but she thinks she deserves to sit on the bench.

Hate is <checks notes> doing a full police investigation including interviewing all Duke players.

that's it?? BYU released a detailed report of their investigation and never questioned the character of any Duke player; and this is the best Duke can do in response? smh pic.twitter.com/5Yn4bsM7aU

— Peaches ñ Memes ⚾ (@NewYearsDani) September 9, 2022

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Again, lots of words, little substance.
It is an undisputable fact that the south saw leaving the union as necessary to preserve the right to own other human beings in the same manner that one owns livestock. No number of words or quotes can alter that truth.

---

If the words of the leading Politicians, Presidents and Generals of the North have no substance than I don't know how to continue with any rational discussion.

---

For you to continue a rational discussion, you would have to have started a rational discussion. There has been precious little evidence of the latter.

In answering the question of why the south tried to leave the union and whether they were justified in doing so,

---

All people are justified in having political independence. The United States is a voluntary political union founded on that very idea. The American Revolution was itself a war of secession.

"the Constitution cannot be maintained nor the Union preserved, in opposition to public feeling, by the mere exertion of the coercive powers confided to the General Government. The foundations must be laid in the affections of the people..."
-President Andrew Jackson's Farewell address

"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation...to a continuance in this Union...I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.'"
- Thomas Jefferson

"If the day should ever come when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other...far better will it be for the people of the disunited States to part in friendship from each other than to be held together by constraint."
-John Q. Adams, 6th Pres

"be one of the maddest projects ever devised: no state would ever suffer itself to be used as the instrument of coercing another"
~ Alexander Hamilton

"But if the right of a state as an organized community to sever its political relations with other communities does not exist, there can be no claim of sovereignty for the state. For if political sovereignty means anything, it includes the attribute of... self-determination as to its status in respect to other sovereignties. Limitation in this attribute is fatal to the conception of sovereignty, and accordingly, the failure of secession removed one pregnant source of confusion at the very basis of our system."
-Prof Dunning

[There is no moral or ethical right to coerce a State that seeks to "alter or abolish" a supposed voluntary political association with other States. It's called self-government & the principle was clearly expressed in the original Declaration of Independence in 1776. ] -William Dunning

"When they were finally separated from Great Britain, the allegiance of their citizens was not to the Nation for there was none. It was to the States."
-President Calvin Coolidge 5/30/1924

P. Gordy (Prof at Ohio Uni) "Political Parties in the US" (1900):
"The convention framed a Constitution by the adoption of which 13 peoples, imagining themselves still independent & sovereign...They continued to think of themselves as sovereigns who indeed permitted an agent to exercise only some of their functions for them, but who had not abdicated their thrones. If the constitution had contained definite statement of the actual fact; if it had said that to adopt it was to acknowledge the sovereignty of the one American people, no part of which could sever its connections from the rest without the consent of the whole, it would probably have been rejected by every State in the Union."]

"If the Union was formed by the accession of States, then the Union may be dissolved by the secession of States."
~ Senator Daniel Webster Massachusetts, US Senate, February 15, 1833

Prof Goldwin Smith, an Advocate for the Union, said 'Few who have looked into the history can doubt that the Union originally was…a compact dissoluble perhaps at pleasure…certainly on breach of the articles of Union'
- C.F.Adams Jr.

"today, no impartial student of our constitutional history can doubt for a moment that each State ratified the form of government summited in the firm belief that at any time it could withdraw therefrom."
-C.F. Adams Jr. (Pres. AHA, Union Vet)


"When a proposition was made to authorize the Federal Gov't to make war upon a State, if necessary to the enforcement of the Federal laws, the great convention which framed the Constitution expressly denied such power." -Sen. Henry C. Burnett


"Realize the existing fact that the constituents of this Union are sovereign powers & that those sovereign powers are not mere component parts of a common empire...reason with them as you will, about the exercise of their sovereignty, but concede it. "
-Sen. James M. Mason, VA 1861 (grandson of George Mason)

"I am sworn to support the Constitution. I am NOT sworn to be true and faithful to the Central Government, as I have sworn to be true and faithful to the State of Virginia"
-James M. Mason (VA 3/1861)


"If the Declaration of Independence be true, (and who here is against it?) every community may dissolve its connection with any other community previously made, & have no other obligation than that which results from the breach of any alliance between States."

"The Southern States had rightfully the power to withdraw from the Union into which they had, as sovereign communities, voluntarily entered; that right was a violation of the letter and spirit of the compact between the States; and that war waged by the Federal Government against the seceding States was in disgrace of the limitations of the Constitution and destructive of the principles of the Declaration of Independence." Jeff Davis, Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government.

---

1. Independent of a constitutional amendment to the contrary, there is no legal mechanism whereby states may leave the union. There wasn't then, there isn't now.

2. Southern states had no more a legal right to leave the union that the city of Hewitt would have a right to set up border posts, collect import and export tariffs, issue passports, and send an ambassador to the Court of St. James.

3. It comes as no real shock that Jefferson Davis thought states had a right to leave the union.

As with all despots who fall back on the principle of non interference in the internal affairs of other nations, arguments for "political independence" fall a little flat when that political independence is sought by those advocating its exercise primarily as a means to protect the right to own people like livestock.

---

1. What part of; "The powers NOT (specifically) 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", do you not understand? The States had the right to enter a voluntary political union and they had the the right to withdraw from it.

Saying they needed an additional constitutional amendment for that purpose it coming up with an excuse to prevent it.

2. The States are sovereign political communities that created the United States Federal Union. A single small city did not do that and has never had the same kind of sovereignty under English later American law.

3. You don't even attempt to engage with the substance of of what Davis said....because you can't....and ignore the quotes by the all the other important people who were not Jeff Davis that I gave you.

As to the point about non-interference in internal affairs well in fact;

[non interference in the internal affairs of other nations is a UN bedrock idea and in international law. "Such intervention is prohibited by the United Nations Charter (Art. 2.7), under the principle of non-intervention, or non-interference, which posits that States should not "intervene in matters to preserve the independence of weaker states against the interventions and pressures of more powerful ones." This concept is presented as the basis for international relations and therefore applies to interstate relations...International law recognizes only one "right of intervention" into a State's internal affairs; it is set forth and limited in Chapter VII of the UN Charter. This right is thus entrusted to the UN Security Council when a State's behavior can be construed as a threat to international peace and security. In such a case, the Council can undertake a series of measures"]


https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/content/article/3/intervention/

---

The United States was formed as a perpetual union, and that was never changed.

---

Again, I have shown you repeatedly that that was not factually true.

Yet you refuse to accept historical reality.

---

You have shown a lot of opinion from various quotes. We could pull up any variety of other quotes asserting the opposite.

Here is some historic reality.

1. The United States was established as a perpetual union.

"To all to whom these Presents shall come, we, the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting. Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of Newhampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhodeisland and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia in the Words following, viz. "Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of Newhampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhodeisland and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia."

This historical reality did not change in 1788 when the Constitution was ratified to form "a more perfect union."

2. The Constitution also explicitly grants power to suppress insurrections to the Federal government.



In the days up to the Civil War, one did not need to be anti-slavery to support the union, but one had to be pro slavery to oppose it.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Again, lots of words, little substance.
It is an undisputable fact that the south saw leaving the union as necessary to preserve the right to own other human beings in the same manner that one owns livestock. No number of words or quotes can alter that truth.

---

If the words of the leading Politicians, Presidents and Generals of the North have no substance than I don't know how to continue with any rational discussion.

---

For you to continue a rational discussion, you would have to have started a rational discussion. There has been precious little evidence of the latter.

In answering the question of why the south tried to leave the union and whether they were justified in doing so,

---

All people are justified in having political independence. The United States is a voluntary political union founded on that very idea. The American Revolution was itself a war of secession.

"the Constitution cannot be maintained nor the Union preserved, in opposition to public feeling, by the mere exertion of the coercive powers confided to the General Government. The foundations must be laid in the affections of the people..."
-President Andrew Jackson's Farewell address

"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation...to a continuance in this Union...I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.'"
- Thomas Jefferson

"If the day should ever come when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other...far better will it be for the people of the disunited States to part in friendship from each other than to be held together by constraint."
-John Q. Adams, 6th Pres

"be one of the maddest projects ever devised: no state would ever suffer itself to be used as the instrument of coercing another"
~ Alexander Hamilton

"But if the right of a state as an organized community to sever its political relations with other communities does not exist, there can be no claim of sovereignty for the state. For if political sovereignty means anything, it includes the attribute of... self-determination as to its status in respect to other sovereignties. Limitation in this attribute is fatal to the conception of sovereignty, and accordingly, the failure of secession removed one pregnant source of confusion at the very basis of our system."
-Prof Dunning

[There is no moral or ethical right to coerce a State that seeks to "alter or abolish" a supposed voluntary political association with other States. It's called self-government & the principle was clearly expressed in the original Declaration of Independence in 1776. ] -William Dunning

"When they were finally separated from Great Britain, the allegiance of their citizens was not to the Nation for there was none. It was to the States."
-President Calvin Coolidge 5/30/1924

P. Gordy (Prof at Ohio Uni) "Political Parties in the US" (1900):
"The convention framed a Constitution by the adoption of which 13 peoples, imagining themselves still independent & sovereign...They continued to think of themselves as sovereigns who indeed permitted an agent to exercise only some of their functions for them, but who had not abdicated their thrones. If the constitution had contained definite statement of the actual fact; if it had said that to adopt it was to acknowledge the sovereignty of the one American people, no part of which could sever its connections from the rest without the consent of the whole, it would probably have been rejected by every State in the Union."]

"If the Union was formed by the accession of States, then the Union may be dissolved by the secession of States."
~ Senator Daniel Webster Massachusetts, US Senate, February 15, 1833

Prof Goldwin Smith, an Advocate for the Union, said 'Few who have looked into the history can doubt that the Union originally was…a compact dissoluble perhaps at pleasure…certainly on breach of the articles of Union'
- C.F.Adams Jr.

"today, no impartial student of our constitutional history can doubt for a moment that each State ratified the form of government summited in the firm belief that at any time it could withdraw therefrom."
-C.F. Adams Jr. (Pres. AHA, Union Vet)


"When a proposition was made to authorize the Federal Gov't to make war upon a State, if necessary to the enforcement of the Federal laws, the great convention which framed the Constitution expressly denied such power." -Sen. Henry C. Burnett


"Realize the existing fact that the constituents of this Union are sovereign powers & that those sovereign powers are not mere component parts of a common empire...reason with them as you will, about the exercise of their sovereignty, but concede it. "
-Sen. James M. Mason, VA 1861 (grandson of George Mason)

"I am sworn to support the Constitution. I am NOT sworn to be true and faithful to the Central Government, as I have sworn to be true and faithful to the State of Virginia"
-James M. Mason (VA 3/1861)


"If the Declaration of Independence be true, (and who here is against it?) every community may dissolve its connection with any other community previously made, & have no other obligation than that which results from the breach of any alliance between States."

"The Southern States had rightfully the power to withdraw from the Union into which they had, as sovereign communities, voluntarily entered; that right was a violation of the letter and spirit of the compact between the States; and that war waged by the Federal Government against the seceding States was in disgrace of the limitations of the Constitution and destructive of the principles of the Declaration of Independence." Jeff Davis, Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government.

---

1. Independent of a constitutional amendment to the contrary, there is no legal mechanism whereby states may leave the union. There wasn't then, there isn't now.

2. Southern states had no more a legal right to leave the union that the city of Hewitt would have a right to set up border posts, collect import and export tariffs, issue passports, and send an ambassador to the Court of St. James.

3. It comes as no real shock that Jefferson Davis thought states had a right to leave the union.

As with all despots who fall back on the principle of non interference in the internal affairs of other nations, arguments for "political independence" fall a little flat when that political independence is sought by those advocating its exercise primarily as a means to protect the right to own people like livestock.

---

1. What part of; "The powers NOT (specifically) 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", do you not understand? The States had the right to enter a voluntary political union and they had the the right to withdraw from it.

Saying they needed an additional constitutional amendment for that purpose it coming up with an excuse to prevent it.

2. The States are sovereign political communities that created the United States Federal Union. A single small city did not do that and has never had the same kind of sovereignty under English later American law.

3. You don't even attempt to engage with the substance of of what Davis said....because you can't....and ignore the quotes by the all the other important people who were not Jeff Davis that I gave you.

As to the point about non-interference in internal affairs well in fact;

[non interference in the internal affairs of other nations is a UN bedrock idea and in international law. "Such intervention is prohibited by the United Nations Charter (Art. 2.7), under the principle of non-intervention, or non-interference, which posits that States should not "intervene in matters to preserve the independence of weaker states against the interventions and pressures of more powerful ones." This concept is presented as the basis for international relations and therefore applies to interstate relations...International law recognizes only one "right of intervention" into a State's internal affairs; it is set forth and limited in Chapter VII of the UN Charter. This right is thus entrusted to the UN Security Council when a State's behavior can be construed as a threat to international peace and security. In such a case, the Council can undertake a series of measures"]


https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/content/article/3/intervention/

---

Yes, non interference in the internal affairs of other nations is a long held ideal. It is also used by tyrannical dictators as a response to criticism by other nations of their tyranny in much the same way that southern politicians in the United States sought to use the principle of political independence as a means to defend people owning other people in the same manner that people own livestock.

---

You again show a massive distained for non-interference in international law and internal affairs.

And you can not argue the Constitutional validity of secession or the legally for forceful war against States by the Central government. So you have had to rely for several pages on an extremely narrow argument. That the fact that the Southern States owned slaves (right or wrong a Constitutional right at the time under United States Law) as the entire premise for why this should have undermined their right to political independence.

The States that would form the United States had legal slavery (including Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey) were they justified in declaring their independence from Great Britain?

Brazil had legal slavery was it justified in declaring its independence from Portugal?

---

The union was set up as a perpetual union,

and among the enumerated powers given to Congress is the ability to call militias specifically to suppress insurrections.

---

1. Have shown you on several occasions that was not correct. And the States and Founding Fathers at the time would have never joined a Union they could not voluntarily withdraw from.

"When our fathers entered upon the work of forming the Union, they found the states existing as independent sovereignties."
-Samuel J. Tilden (NY) 1860

"My opposition war has been caused by a firm conviction that a Government formed, like ours, by mutual consent, & compromise, must be held together only by the same means. The Founding Fathers imagined no other kind."
-John Whiteaker, Gov of Oregon (9/8/1862)

"The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the states; and in uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people… If one of the states choose to withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disprove its rights of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or right." -DeTocqueville

"Secession was not something defined within Constitutional law. This was because the idea of such a thing was so fundamental to our founding generation that it was taken for granted. The further you move away from that generation though the more the idea can become clouded."

2. The voluntary withdraw of the governments of 11 States is not an "insurrection". Lincoln and the Federal government were forced to keep up this reuse that an "insurrection" was taking place against the state themselves during the war because to have done less would have been to admit the legality of national independence. A legal fiction that while a State like Texas still existed on paper, it had somehow been taken over by an insurrection and need to be liberated. But of course Texas had called for no such help from its own citizens and Legislature.

It is the duty of the Gov't to suppress insurrection in a State; but in this event the military power can only be used in strict subordination to the civil authority. If the State civil authority refuse to call for such aid...the military power cannot interfere."
-Sen. John Sherman 1/18/1861

"Congress cannot declare war against a state or any number of states, by virtue of the constitution. Nor has the Pres any power to...declare a war of any sort. He is only authorized by law 'to suppress insurrection' against the government of a state. But if the government of the State can not itself commit insurrection against itself"
-Dunning

"There is no pretense of insurrection against the laws of any State; but there has been a withdrawal from this Federal Union of 6 of the southern States...This measure by the government points to this lamentable state of affairs, and proposes its correction by force of arms."
-Senator Burnett 2/26/1861

"Under such a law his [Linclon] armed men under his command could invade a State, turn its Legislature out doors at the point of the bayonet, capture its executive, overthrow its judiciary, quarter Federal troops...& thus enforce his idea of insurrection against the authority of the US."
-Sen. Henry Burnett

"The South was being conquered by an outside military power… all in the name of protecting it from 'insurrection' by its own Governors, legislatures, judges, politicians, and voting citizens. This was in effect President Lincolns argument."

"Officers of both Federal and State Governments are required to take an oath to the Constitution, a compact of binding force, based upon the sovereignty of the States Every such officer is, therefore, sworn to maintain and support the sovereignty of all the States."

"And where is there to be found, in our history, or our constitutions, either State or national, any warrant for saying, that a President of the US has been empowered by the Constitution to extend martial law over the whole country...He has no such authority."
-Curtis

"Tennessee will not furnish a single man for purposes of coercion, but 50,000 if necessary for the defense of our rights and those of our Southern brothers." - Gov. Isham Harris's response to Lincoln's call for 75,000 men

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." -James Madison

"To deny this right [of secession] would be inconsistent with the principle on which all of our political systems are founded."
- William Rawle

ShooterTX said:

---

I had to scroll back to the OP.. and yep... this thread has NOTHING to do with the Civil War.

Why do stupid people continue to bring up the Civil War, whenever there is a race incident? It was well over 100 years ago. No one alive today has any memory of it, or even talked with someone who lived through it.

It is totally irrelevant to the situation at hand. I'm sure it was a fun distraction for some of you to debate the merits of the North or South... but it is totally irrelevant to the BYU vs Duke game.

This is a thread about one simple thing... people continue to make-up racial incidences... and we had another race hoax just last week at BYU.

Stop believing these stupid allegations, and start treating them with the critical skepticism that they CLEARLY deserve. Stop believing these moronic BLM people... they are just liars. The only racist in this entire story, is the god-mother who started the entire viral hoax on social media. SHE is the racist who needs to be cancelled... but she wants your vote so she can become a judge. Just let that sink in for a minute. She is a liar and a racist, but she thinks she deserves to sit on the bench.

---

I agree,

And would be happy to keep schooling D.C. about the war in 1861 on another thread dedicated to that topic exclusively.

Peace...

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:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Again, lots of words, little substance.
It is an undisputable fact that the south saw leaving the union as necessary to preserve the right to own other human beings in the same manner that one owns livestock. No number of words or quotes can alter that truth.

---

If the words of the leading Politicians, Presidents and Generals of the North have no substance than I don't know how to continue with any rational discussion.

---

For you to continue a rational discussion, you would have to have started a rational discussion. There has been precious little evidence of the latter.

In answering the question of why the south tried to leave the union and whether they were justified in doing so,

---

All people are justified in having political independence. The United States is a voluntary political union founded on that very idea. The American Revolution was itself a war of secession.

"the Constitution cannot be maintained nor the Union preserved, in opposition to public feeling, by the mere exertion of the coercive powers confided to the General Government. The foundations must be laid in the affections of the people..."
-President Andrew Jackson's Farewell address

"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation...to a continuance in this Union...I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.'"
- Thomas Jefferson

"If the day should ever come when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other...far better will it be for the people of the disunited States to part in friendship from each other than to be held together by constraint."
-John Q. Adams, 6th Pres

"be one of the maddest projects ever devised: no state would ever suffer itself to be used as the instrument of coercing another"
~ Alexander Hamilton

"But if the right of a state as an organized community to sever its political relations with other communities does not exist, there can be no claim of sovereignty for the state. For if political sovereignty means anything, it includes the attribute of... self-determination as to its status in respect to other sovereignties. Limitation in this attribute is fatal to the conception of sovereignty, and accordingly, the failure of secession removed one pregnant source of confusion at the very basis of our system."
-Prof Dunning

[There is no moral or ethical right to coerce a State that seeks to "alter or abolish" a supposed voluntary political association with other States. It's called self-government & the principle was clearly expressed in the original Declaration of Independence in 1776. ] -William Dunning

"When they were finally separated from Great Britain, the allegiance of their citizens was not to the Nation for there was none. It was to the States."
-President Calvin Coolidge 5/30/1924

P. Gordy (Prof at Ohio Uni) "Political Parties in the US" (1900):
"The convention framed a Constitution by the adoption of which 13 peoples, imagining themselves still independent & sovereign...They continued to think of themselves as sovereigns who indeed permitted an agent to exercise only some of their functions for them, but who had not abdicated their thrones. If the constitution had contained definite statement of the actual fact; if it had said that to adopt it was to acknowledge the sovereignty of the one American people, no part of which could sever its connections from the rest without the consent of the whole, it would probably have been rejected by every State in the Union."]

"If the Union was formed by the accession of States, then the Union may be dissolved by the secession of States."
~ Senator Daniel Webster Massachusetts, US Senate, February 15, 1833

Prof Goldwin Smith, an Advocate for the Union, said 'Few who have looked into the history can doubt that the Union originally was…a compact dissoluble perhaps at pleasure…certainly on breach of the articles of Union'
- C.F.Adams Jr.

"today, no impartial student of our constitutional history can doubt for a moment that each State ratified the form of government summited in the firm belief that at any time it could withdraw therefrom."
-C.F. Adams Jr. (Pres. AHA, Union Vet)


"When a proposition was made to authorize the Federal Gov't to make war upon a State, if necessary to the enforcement of the Federal laws, the great convention which framed the Constitution expressly denied such power." -Sen. Henry C. Burnett


"Realize the existing fact that the constituents of this Union are sovereign powers & that those sovereign powers are not mere component parts of a common empire...reason with them as you will, about the exercise of their sovereignty, but concede it. "
-Sen. James M. Mason, VA 1861 (grandson of George Mason)

"I am sworn to support the Constitution. I am NOT sworn to be true and faithful to the Central Government, as I have sworn to be true and faithful to the State of Virginia"
-James M. Mason (VA 3/1861)


"If the Declaration of Independence be true, (and who here is against it?) every community may dissolve its connection with any other community previously made, & have no other obligation than that which results from the breach of any alliance between States."

"The Southern States had rightfully the power to withdraw from the Union into which they had, as sovereign communities, voluntarily entered; that right was a violation of the letter and spirit of the compact between the States; and that war waged by the Federal Government against the seceding States was in disgrace of the limitations of the Constitution and destructive of the principles of the Declaration of Independence." Jeff Davis, Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government.

---

1. Independent of a constitutional amendment to the contrary, there is no legal mechanism whereby states may leave the union. There wasn't then, there isn't now.

2. Southern states had no more a legal right to leave the union that the city of Hewitt would have a right to set up border posts, collect import and export tariffs, issue passports, and send an ambassador to the Court of St. James.

3. It comes as no real shock that Jefferson Davis thought states had a right to leave the union.

As with all despots who fall back on the principle of non interference in the internal affairs of other nations, arguments for "political independence" fall a little flat when that political independence is sought by those advocating its exercise primarily as a means to protect the right to own people like livestock.

---

1. What part of; "The powers NOT (specifically) 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", do you not understand? The States had the right to enter a voluntary political union and they had the the right to withdraw from it.

Saying they needed an additional constitutional amendment for that purpose it coming up with an excuse to prevent it.

2. The States are sovereign political communities that created the United States Federal Union. A single small city did not do that and has never had the same kind of sovereignty under English later American law.

3. You don't even attempt to engage with the substance of of what Davis said....because you can't....and ignore the quotes by the all the other important people who were not Jeff Davis that I gave you.

As to the point about non-interference in internal affairs well in fact;

[non interference in the internal affairs of other nations is a UN bedrock idea and in international law. "Such intervention is prohibited by the United Nations Charter (Art. 2.7), under the principle of non-intervention, or non-interference, which posits that States should not "intervene in matters to preserve the independence of weaker states against the interventions and pressures of more powerful ones." This concept is presented as the basis for international relations and therefore applies to interstate relations...International law recognizes only one "right of intervention" into a State's internal affairs; it is set forth and limited in Chapter VII of the UN Charter. This right is thus entrusted to the UN Security Council when a State's behavior can be construed as a threat to international peace and security. In such a case, the Council can undertake a series of measures"]


https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/content/article/3/intervention/

---

Yes, non interference in the internal affairs of other nations is a long held ideal. It is also used by tyrannical dictators as a response to criticism by other nations of their tyranny in much the same way that southern politicians in the United States sought to use the principle of political independence as a means to defend people owning other people in the same manner that people own livestock.

---

You again show a massive distained for non-interference in international law and internal affairs.

And you can not argue the Constitutional validity of secession or the legally for forceful war against States by the Central government. So you have had to rely for several pages on an extremely narrow argument. That the fact that the Southern States owned slaves (right or wrong a Constitutional right at the time under United States Law) as the entire premise for why this should have undermined their right to political independence.

The States that would form the United States had legal slavery (including Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey) were they justified in declaring their independence from Great Britain?

Brazil had legal slavery was it justified in declaring its independence from Portugal?

---

The union was set up as a perpetual union,

and among the enumerated powers given to Congress is the ability to call militias specifically to suppress insurrections.

---

1. Have shown you on several occasions that was not correct. And the States and Founding Fathers at the time would have never joined a Union they could not voluntarily withdraw from.

---

I have shown you that they did, in fact, join a "perpetual union," so, when you say they would not have done so and quote a bunch of people that's nice, but the undisputable fact that they actually did join a "perpetual union" is superior evidence against your claim.

Jack Bauer said:

---

how many people in the media have discovered/questioned

1) Wow, this Godmother is the most racist person in this story
2) She is running to be a JUDGE!!!!

---

I think once it was found out to be a hoax the main media organs just kind of dropped the story.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-abc-espn-promoted-duke-volleyball-players-racial-slur-story-go-quiet-developments-debunking-claim

ShooterTX said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

how many people in the media have discovered/questioned

1) Wow, this Godmother is the most racist person in this story
2) She is running to be a JUDGE!!!!

---

That's not their job.

Their job is not about reporting on stories or investigating to discover the truth. Modern day journalists exist to perpetuate the state-approved messaging.

The state-approved messaging includes "wear a mask at all times", "the vaccines are effective, but you will need a new dose every few months", and "white people are racist and evil at all times".

If you report a story that is in conflict with the state-approved messaging... you will be fired, cancelled, arrested, etc. Don't' believe me... just ask the folks who questioned the vax in 2021. I personally know a handful of doctors who spent the majority of 2021 defending their license to practice medicine because of it. One in particular was accused of spreading "mis-information" for advising a pregnant patient to avoid the vax. Now the government of the UK has admitted that the vax can be dangerous for pregnant women. No apologies from the state board of medicine for 7 months of hell for my friend.

Being a vassal of the state, means never having to say "I'm sorry" for ruining people's lives.

---

"The problem with current year journalism is that it has become the cultural enforcer of powerful corporate and political interests, rather than holding the powerful to account. That's going to attract a certain personality type and repel average people."

"Journalism exists for two reasons. To make lots of money off selling advertisement space and to advance a certain type of political discourse…almost always of a liberal and progressive style."

ATL Bear said:

---

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 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.

---

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

"When they were finally separated from Great Britain, the allegiance of their citizens was not to the Nation for there was none. It was to the States."
-President Calvin Coolidge 5/30/1924

Whatever their "allegiance" was to, it is not accurate to say that the colonies were "finally separated from Great Britain" before there was a nation.

1777. Articles of Confederation form a perpetual union of the United States.

1783. Treaty of Paris recognizes actual independence of the United States, separating the colonies from Great Britain.

Jack Bauer said:

---

Wow - what monsters!

Quote:

---

We reviewed all available video and audio recordings, including security footage and raw footage from all camera angles taken by BYUtv of the match, with broadcasting audio removed (to ensure that the noise from the stands could be heard more clearly). We also reached out to more than 50 individuals who attended the event: Duke athletic department personnel and student-athletes, BYU athletic department personnel and student-athletes, event security and management and fans who were in the arena that evening, including many of the fans in the on-court student section.

From our extensive review, we have not found any evidence to corroborate the allegation that fans engaged in racial heckling or uttered racial slurs at the event.

---

---

Maybe the coach from South Carolina who took to the media to declare her team would not play BYU will now change her mind.

She at least owes BYU fans an apology.

Jack Bauer said:

---

how many people in the media have discovered/questioned

1) Wow, this Godmother is the most racist person in this story
2) She is running to be a JUDGE!!!!

---

I have seen nobody question her incredible racism, I'm sure everybody
knows about it, since she is so out front and center and really proud of her racism.

cowboycwr said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

It's odd to see one side provide direct quotes from the men in charge at the time and be answered with middle school level historical talking points, and then attempts to say any discussion that is short of full agreement is signs that person is a racist. "You don't agree with what my junior high gym coach taught me in history?!? YOURE RACIST!"

BID

---

Quotes don't prove anything.

People say things all the time.... like the claim that started this thread.

Can I then provide that quote the Duke player made as "evidence"????

No because it was just words. The facts stand for themselves.

Sorry but ANYONE that defends slavery or the south fighting to keep slavery is racist. plain and simple. That isn't calling names. It is stating facts.

---

Nah, it's just the race card in effort to avoid losing the discussion. Period.

Wangchung said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

It's odd to see one side provide direct quotes from the men in charge at the time and be answered with middle school level historical talking points, and then attempts to say any discussion that is short of full agreement is signs that person is a racist. "You don't agree with what my junior high gym coach taught me in history?!? YOURE RACIST!"

BID

---

Quotes don't prove anything.

People say things all the time.... like the claim that started this thread.

Can I then provide that quote the Duke player made as "evidence"????

No because it was just words. The facts stand for themselves.

Sorry but ANYONE that defends slavery or the south fighting to keep slavery is racist. plain and simple. That isn't calling names. It is stating facts.

---

Nah, it's just the race card in effort to avoid losing the discussion. Period.

---

While an decent argument can be made that "ANYONE that defends slavery or the south fighting to keep slavery is racist. plain and simple," it is not a necessary argument or even a decisive argument. The "race card" is unnecessary to "avoid losing the discussion." Period.

Jack Bauer said:

---

Seriously....she said her black teammates were also subjected to non-stop racial harassment.

NONE of them have spoken up to back up that claim?
None of the Duke players standing feet from the BYU students have said anything??

---

I haven't seen a single bit of evidence to support the claim that she was subjected to "non-stop racial harassment," or any racial harassment at all.

Media jumped on it like a chicken on a June bug. Too bad they will likely not be punished for it.