Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

historian said:

---

Good point. Trump definitely is no Angel. However, many people support him because he has a record of success and on delivering on promises. Not many politicians can say that. The only modern example I can think of is Reagan, who was also one of the most popular in his day. For what it's worth, Reagan is the only president since Eisenhower to win two landslide victories. That says something about his popularity. Arguably, Reagan won 3 in that GHW Bush (#41) won by a sizable margin largely on Reagan's coattails. He then squandered it with, "Read my lips…"

---

What were his promises? He lied about building a wall and Mexico would pay for the wall. He lied about fiscal sanity leaving us with largest debt in history.

You may be referring to moving the Israeli capital to Jerusalem of which 80% of us could care less except for the fact we probably paid for that too.

Promise to end Obamacare? Failed in that regard too. Congress just wouldn't listen to him.

Debt: Failed on promise to eliminate

Manufacturing: Bringing jobs back failed by the end of his term.

---

1. Despite DEMOCRATIC opposition Trump built much of the wall and dramatically reduce illegal immigration.
2. All Federal budgets originated in the DEMOCRATIC controlled house. Short of vetoing them there was little Trump could do.
3. I definitely cared about Trumps courageous move of our embassy to Jerusalem. Had been promised for decades.
4. DEMOCRATIC controlled house refused to reform Obamacare.
5. Trump created record employment; especially for minorities.
Only the worst epidemic in US history stopped it. Are you seriously 'forgetting' that ?

KaiBear said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

historian said:

---

Good point. Trump definitely is no Angel. However, many people support him because he has a record of success and on delivering on promises. Not many politicians can say that. The only modern example I can think of is Reagan, who was also one of the most popular in his day. For what it's worth, Reagan is the only president since Eisenhower to win two landslide victories. That says something about his popularity. Arguably, Reagan won 3 in that GHW Bush (#41) won by a sizable margin largely on Reagan's coattails. He then squandered it with, "Read my lips…"

---

What were his promises? He lied about building a wall and Mexico would pay for the wall. He lied about fiscal sanity leaving us with largest debt in history.

You may be referring to moving the Israeli capital to Jerusalem of which 80% of us could care less except for the fact we probably paid for that too.

Promise to end Obamacare? Failed in that regard too. Congress just wouldn't listen to him.

Debt: Failed on promise to eliminate

Manufacturing: Bringing jobs back failed by the end of his term.

---

1. Despite DEMOCRATIC opposition Trump built much of the wall and dramatically reduce illegal immigration.
2. All Federal budgets originated in the DEMOCRATIC controlled house. Short of vetoing them there was little Trump could do.
3. I definitely cared about Trumps courageous move of our embassy to Jerusalem. Had been promised for decades.
4. DEMOCRATIC controlled house refused to reform Obamacare.
5. Trump created record employment; especially for minorities.
Only the worst epidemic in US history stopped it. Are you seriously 'forgetting' that ?

---

Trump did some good things.

But, he built only 50 miles of new wall, and paid $15 billion for it.

He did not dramatically reduce immigration. Aside from the COVID dip, his #s were in line with Obama's.

He had a GOP congress, and his own proposed budgets dramatically increased spending. He did not fight for any spending cuts and has consistently denounced any GOP politicians who are open to entitlement reform.

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

historian said:

---

Good point. Trump definitely is no Angel. However, many people support him because he has a record of success and on delivering on promises. Not many politicians can say that. The only modern example I can think of is Reagan, who was also one of the most popular in his day. For what it's worth, Reagan is the only president since Eisenhower to win two landslide victories. That says something about his popularity. Arguably, Reagan won 3 in that GHW Bush (#41) won by a sizable margin largely on Reagan's coattails. He then squandered it with, "Read my lips…"

---

What were his promises? He lied about building a wall and Mexico would pay for the wall. He lied about fiscal sanity leaving us with largest debt in history.

You may be referring to moving the Israeli capital to Jerusalem of which 80% of us could care less except for the fact we probably paid for that too.

Promise to end Obamacare? Failed in that regard too. Congress just wouldn't listen to him.

Debt: Failed on promise to eliminate

Manufacturing: Bringing jobs back failed by the end of his term.

---

1. Despite DEMOCRATIC opposition Trump built much of the wall and dramatically reduce illegal immigration.
2. All Federal budgets originated in the DEMOCRATIC controlled house. Short of vetoing them there was little Trump could do.
3. I definitely cared about Trumps courageous move of our embassy to Jerusalem. Had been promised for decades.
4. DEMOCRATIC controlled house refused to reform Obamacare.
5. Trump created record employment; especially for minorities.
Only the worst epidemic in US history stopped it. Are you seriously 'forgetting' that ?

---

Trump did some good things.

But, he built only 50 miles of new wall, and paid $15 billion for it.

He did not dramatically reduce immigration. Aside from the COVID dip, his #s were in line with Obama's.

He had a GOP congress, and his own proposed budgets dramatically increased spending. He did not fight for any spending cuts and has consistently denounced any GOP politicians who are open to entitlement reform.

---

he had contracted more wall to be built, he repaired miles of wall that had already been built, but damaged. When Biden took office, they sold all the materials that had been purchased to continue the building process at surplus rates and canceled the contracts.

Realitybites said:

---

No government in history has been perpetual.

The statements in the Declaration of Independence stand in radical opposition to the idea of perpetual government.

---

This is an argument as old as the concept of a USA. There is an argument that it goes back to the Articles of Confederation in 1774. A war was fought and the Supreme Court ruled in Texas vs White. It is pretty much settled.

4th and Inches said:

---

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

historian said:

---

Good point. Trump definitely is no Angel. However, many people support him because he has a record of success and on delivering on promises. Not many politicians can say that. The only modern example I can think of is Reagan, who was also one of the most popular in his day. For what it's worth, Reagan is the only president since Eisenhower to win two landslide victories. That says something about his popularity. Arguably, Reagan won 3 in that GHW Bush (#41) won by a sizable margin largely on Reagan's coattails. He then squandered it with, "Read my lips…"

---

What were his promises? He lied about building a wall and Mexico would pay for the wall. He lied about fiscal sanity leaving us with largest debt in history.

You may be referring to moving the Israeli capital to Jerusalem of which 80% of us could care less except for the fact we probably paid for that too.

Promise to end Obamacare? Failed in that regard too. Congress just wouldn't listen to him.

Debt: Failed on promise to eliminate

Manufacturing: Bringing jobs back failed by the end of his term.

---

1. Despite DEMOCRATIC opposition Trump built much of the wall and dramatically reduce illegal immigration.
2. All Federal budgets originated in the DEMOCRATIC controlled house. Short of vetoing them there was little Trump could do.
3. I definitely cared about Trumps courageous move of our embassy to Jerusalem. Had been promised for decades.
4. DEMOCRATIC controlled house refused to reform Obamacare.
5. Trump created record employment; especially for minorities.
Only the worst epidemic in US history stopped it. Are you seriously 'forgetting' that ?

---

Trump did some good things.

But, he built only 50 miles of new wall, and paid $15 billion for it.

He did not dramatically reduce immigration. Aside from the COVID dip, his #s were in line with Obama's.

He had a GOP congress, and his own proposed budgets dramatically increased spending. He did not fight for any spending cuts and has consistently denounced any GOP politicians who are open to entitlement reform.

---

he had contracted more wall to be built, he repaired miles of wall that had already been built, but damaged. When Biden took office, they sold all the materials that had been purchased to continue the building process at surplus rates and canceled the contracts.

---

Facts: 4 years (2 with GOP Congress), 50 new miles, $15 billion.

Repairs had been already approved by the Obama admin.

sombear said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

historian said:

---

Good point. Trump definitely is no Angel. However, many people support him because he has a record of success and on delivering on promises. Not many politicians can say that. The only modern example I can think of is Reagan, who was also one of the most popular in his day. For what it's worth, Reagan is the only president since Eisenhower to win two landslide victories. That says something about his popularity. Arguably, Reagan won 3 in that GHW Bush (#41) won by a sizable margin largely on Reagan's coattails. He then squandered it with, "Read my lips…"

---

What were his promises? He lied about building a wall and Mexico would pay for the wall. He lied about fiscal sanity leaving us with largest debt in history.

You may be referring to moving the Israeli capital to Jerusalem of which 80% of us could care less except for the fact we probably paid for that too.

Promise to end Obamacare? Failed in that regard too. Congress just wouldn't listen to him.

Debt: Failed on promise to eliminate

Manufacturing: Bringing jobs back failed by the end of his term.

---

1. Despite DEMOCRATIC opposition Trump built much of the wall and dramatically reduce illegal immigration.
2. All Federal budgets originated in the DEMOCRATIC controlled house. Short of vetoing them there was little Trump could do.
3. I definitely cared about Trumps courageous move of our embassy to Jerusalem. Had been promised for decades.
4. DEMOCRATIC controlled house refused to reform Obamacare.
5. Trump created record employment; especially for minorities.
Only the worst epidemic in US history stopped it. Are you seriously 'forgetting' that ?

---

Trump did some good things.

But, he built only 50 miles of new wall, and paid $15 billion for it.

He did not dramatically reduce immigration. Aside from the COVID dip, his #s were in line with Obama's.

He had a GOP congress, and his own proposed budgets dramatically increased spending. He did not fight for any spending cuts and has consistently denounced any GOP politicians who are open to entitlement reform.

---

he had contracted more wall to be built, he repaired miles of wall that had already been built, but damaged. When Biden took office, they sold all the materials that had been purchased to continue the building process at surplus rates and canceled the contracts.

---

Facts: 4 years (2 with GOP Congress), 50 new miles, $15 billion.

Repairs had been already approved by the Obama admin.

---

meh, better than Bidens 7 electric gas stations for 7.5 Billion

You act like the GOP actually wanted to work with Trump on anything related to the border.. they like their cheap labor

No agenda here...

Why did he call for a dr, Newsweek? To help a supporter who passed out, you propagandist pos hack.

— Sara Rose 🇺🇸🌹 (@saras76) August 22, 2024

FLBear5630 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Treason is illegal. It's even clearly defined in the constitution and there is no doubt that the Confederates were guilty: they made war on the U.S., a war they started.

---

But it was not treason and secession is not illegal.

You really should read the U.S. Constitution some time...secession is no where forbidden in the document.

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

"The Constitution was to form a gov't for such States as should be willing to 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."

"Congress cannot declare war against a state or any number of states, by virtue of the constitution." Nor has the President any power to...declare a war of any sort. He is only authorized by law "to suppress insurrection against the government of a state."-Dunning

"Lincoln had long believed that Southern talk of secession was nothing but bluff. In 1856 he had stated in a speech in Galena, Illinois: "All this talk about the dissolution of the Union is humbug." He grossly underestimated secessionist sentiment and overestimated pro-Union strength in the upper South and border regions." Gutenberg's A Short Life of Abraham Lincoln, by John G. Nicolay

---

You keep using quotes from people that were found to be wrong. Texas vs White settled this at the highest level, unilateral secession is illegal, period. You can quote every "Lost Cause" apologist you like, it does not change the ruling.

---

You realize that most of those quotes are from Northern historians and Founding fathers right?

People can have opinions and are not "found to be wrong" by virtue of the fact that you don't like them.

Again lets quote a Northern Chief Justice of the Supreme Court....not a "lost causer" that you are scared of.

[The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court delivered opinion said. "If you bring these leaders to trial it will condemn the north, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion." Lincoln appointee Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, July 1867 (The Civil War, Vol. 3, p. 765)

And White was a case from years after the war....in 1861 there was not Constitutional amendment that prevented Secession, no Congressional law that prevented Secession, and no Supreme Court case that prevented Secession.

---

Has White vs Texas been revisited? No. It is the law of the land and been so for over 100 years..

---

A Supreme Court ruling that did not exist in 1861

In 1861 there as not Constitutional amendment that forbid secession, no Congressional law that forbid secession, and not Supreme Court case that forbid secession.

The States had every right to feel they could take back the rights to sovereignty they had granted to the Federal government and declare independence

---

No they didn't. Under the Supremacy Clause the States have no sovereignty. They must follow the Fed law even if they disagree. Sorry, your argument is Lost Cause BS ...

---

quote the fed law in place in 1860 or tenth amendment applies

---

Lincoln said it best...

The idea of a national government agreeing to its own termination was absurd.

---

But the United States was not being "terminated" in 1861

It was (and would have) continued on just fine with its capital in DC.

[It is sometimes said that the Confederates fought to overthrow the US government. But no, the South fought to establish its own new government. Secession did not destroy the nation, but merely reduced its territorial extent. The United States existed when there were only 13 states, and it would have existed if there were only 20 states left. The charge by President Lincoln that the aim of the Southerners was to overthrow the government was no more true than if King George III had said that the secession of the American colonies from Great Britain had as its goal the destruction of the British government. The British government was not destroyed by the independence of the American colonies. Nor would the U.S. government have been destroyed by the independence of the Southern states.]

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Treason is illegal. It's even clearly defined in the constitution and there is no doubt that the Confederates were guilty: they made war on the U.S., a war they started.

---

But it was not treason and secession is not illegal.

You really should read the U.S. Constitution some time...secession is no where forbidden in the document.

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

"The Constitution was to form a gov't for such States as should be willing to 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."

"Congress cannot declare war against a state or any number of states, by virtue of the constitution." Nor has the President any power to...declare a war of any sort. He is only authorized by law "to suppress insurrection against the government of a state."-Dunning

"Lincoln had long believed that Southern talk of secession was nothing but bluff. In 1856 he had stated in a speech in Galena, Illinois: "All this talk about the dissolution of the Union is humbug." He grossly underestimated secessionist sentiment and overestimated pro-Union strength in the upper South and border regions." Gutenberg's A Short Life of Abraham Lincoln, by John G. Nicolay

---

You keep using quotes from people that were found to be wrong. Texas vs White settled this at the highest level, unilateral secession is illegal, period. You can quote every "Lost Cause" apologist you like, it does not change the ruling.

---

You realize that most of those quotes are from Northern historians and Founding fathers right?

People can have opinions and are not "found to be wrong" by virtue of the fact that you don't like them.

Again lets quote a Northern Chief Justice of the Supreme Court....not a "lost causer" that you are scared of.

[The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court delivered opinion said. "If you bring these leaders to trial it will condemn the north, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion." Lincoln appointee Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, July 1867 (The Civil War, Vol. 3, p. 765)

And White was a case from years after the war....in 1861 there was not Constitutional amendment that prevented Secession, no Congressional law that prevented Secession, and no Supreme Court case that prevented Secession.

---

Has White vs Texas been revisited? No. It is the law of the land and been so for over 100 years..

---

A Supreme Court ruling that did not exist in 1861

In 1861 there as not Constitutional amendment that forbid secession, no Congressional law that forbid secession, and not Supreme Court case that forbid secession.

The States had every right to feel they could take back the rights to sovereignty they had granted to the Federal government and declare independence

---

No they didn't. Under the Supremacy Clause the States have no sovereignty. They must follow the Fed law even if they disagree. Sorry, your argument is Lost Cause BS ...

---

quote the fed law in place in 1860 or tenth amendment applies

---

Lincoln said it best...

The idea of a national government agreeing to its own termination was absurd.

---

But the United States was not being "terminated" in 1861

It was (and would have) continued on just fine with its capital in DC.

[It is sometimes said that the Confederates fought to overthrow the US government. But no, the South fought to establish its own new government. Secession did not destroy the nation, but merely reduced its territorial extent. The United States existed when there were only 13 states, and it would have existed if there were only 20 states left. The charge by President Lincoln that the aim of the Southerners was to overthrow the government was no more true than if King George III had said that the secession of the American colonies from Great Britain had as its goal the destruction of the British government. The British government was not destroyed by the independence of the American colonies. Nor would the U.S. government have been destroyed by the independence of the Southern states.]

---

You are fighting a "Lost Cause", this was already answered. It is done. Unless it goes back to the Supreme Court and they rule differently, you are wrong...

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Treason is illegal. It's even clearly defined in the constitution and there is no doubt that the Confederates were guilty: they made war on the U.S., a war they started.

---

But it was not treason and secession is not illegal.

You really should read the U.S. Constitution some time...secession is no where forbidden in the document.

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

"The Constitution was to form a gov't for such States as should be willing to 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."

"Congress cannot declare war against a state or any number of states, by virtue of the constitution." Nor has the President any power to...declare a war of any sort. He is only authorized by law "to suppress insurrection against the government of a state."-Dunning

"Lincoln had long believed that Southern talk of secession was nothing but bluff. In 1856 he had stated in a speech in Galena, Illinois: "All this talk about the dissolution of the Union is humbug." He grossly underestimated secessionist sentiment and overestimated pro-Union strength in the upper South and border regions." Gutenberg's A Short Life of Abraham Lincoln, by John G. Nicolay

---

You keep using quotes from people that were found to be wrong. Texas vs White settled this at the highest level, unilateral secession is illegal, period. You can quote every "Lost Cause" apologist you like, it does not change the ruling.

---

You realize that most of those quotes are from Northern historians and Founding fathers right?

People can have opinions and are not "found to be wrong" by virtue of the fact that you don't like them.

Again lets quote a Northern Chief Justice of the Supreme Court....not a "lost causer" that you are scared of.

[The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court delivered opinion said. "If you bring these leaders to trial it will condemn the north, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion." Lincoln appointee Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, July 1867 (The Civil War, Vol. 3, p. 765)

And White was a case from years after the war....in 1861 there was not Constitutional amendment that prevented Secession, no Congressional law that prevented Secession, and no Supreme Court case that prevented Secession.

---

Has White vs Texas been revisited? No. It is the law of the land and been so for over 100 years..

---

A Supreme Court ruling that did not exist in 1861

In 1861 there as not Constitutional amendment that forbid secession, no Congressional law that forbid secession, and not Supreme Court case that forbid secession.

The States had every right to feel they could take back the rights to sovereignty they had granted to the Federal government and declare independence

---

No they didn't. Under the Supremacy Clause the States have no sovereignty. They must follow the Fed law even if they disagree. Sorry, your argument is Lost Cause BS ...

---

Wut? lol

Not even the most extreme Unionist has ever argued that the States don't have have soverignity.

Now they might argue the Union is unbreakable but not that the States have lost their soverignity by being members of that Union.

[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 Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, Shelby County v. Holder, June 25,)]

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Treason is illegal. It's even clearly defined in the constitution and there is no doubt that the Confederates were guilty: they made war on the U.S., a war they started.

---

But it was not treason and secession is not illegal.

You really should read the U.S. Constitution some time...secession is no where forbidden in the document.

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

"The Constitution was to form a gov't for such States as should be willing to 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."

"Congress cannot declare war against a state or any number of states, by virtue of the constitution." Nor has the President any power to...declare a war of any sort. He is only authorized by law "to suppress insurrection against the government of a state."-Dunning

"Lincoln had long believed that Southern talk of secession was nothing but bluff. In 1856 he had stated in a speech in Galena, Illinois: "All this talk about the dissolution of the Union is humbug." He grossly underestimated secessionist sentiment and overestimated pro-Union strength in the upper South and border regions." Gutenberg's A Short Life of Abraham Lincoln, by John G. Nicolay

---

You keep using quotes from people that were found to be wrong. Texas vs White settled this at the highest level, unilateral secession is illegal, period. You can quote every "Lost Cause" apologist you like, it does not change the ruling.

---

You realize that most of those quotes are from Northern historians and Founding fathers right?

People can have opinions and are not "found to be wrong" by virtue of the fact that you don't like them.

Again lets quote a Northern Chief Justice of the Supreme Court....not a "lost causer" that you are scared of.

[The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court delivered opinion said. "If you bring these leaders to trial it will condemn the north, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion." Lincoln appointee Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, July 1867 (The Civil War, Vol. 3, p. 765)

And White was a case from years after the war....in 1861 there was not Constitutional amendment that prevented Secession, no Congressional law that prevented Secession, and no Supreme Court case that prevented Secession.

---

Has White vs Texas been revisited? No. It is the law of the land and been so for over 100 years..

---

A Supreme Court ruling that did not exist in 1861

In 1861 there as not Constitutional amendment that forbid secession, no Congressional law that forbid secession, and not Supreme Court case that forbid secession.

The States had every right to feel they could take back the rights to sovereignty they had granted to the Federal government and declare independence

---

No they didn't. Under the Supremacy Clause the States have no sovereignty. They must follow the Fed law even if they disagree. Sorry, your argument is Lost Cause BS ...

---

quote the fed law in place in 1860 or tenth amendment applies

---

Lincoln said it best...

The idea of a national government agreeing to its own termination was absurd.

---

But the United States was not being "terminated" in 1861

It was (and would have) continued on just fine with its capital in DC.

[It is sometimes said that the Confederates fought to overthrow the US government. But no, the South fought to establish its own new government. Secession did not destroy the nation, but merely reduced its territorial extent. The United States existed when there were only 13 states, and it would have existed if there were only 20 states left. The charge by President Lincoln that the aim of the Southerners was to overthrow the government was no more true than if King George III had said that the secession of the American colonies from Great Britain had as its goal the destruction of the British government. The British government was not destroyed by the independence of the American colonies. Nor would the U.S. government have been destroyed by the independence of the Southern states.]

---

You are fighting a "Lost Cause", this was already answered. It is done. Unless it goes back to the Supreme Court and they rule differently, you are wrong...

---

Wrong that the US would have continued without Texas ? That is not something the US Supreme Court ever decided.

(The ruled on secession)

Lincoln's argument that the USA was in danger of being destroyed was obliviously propaganda and useful in trying to whip up a pro-war sentiment in the North.

But in truth the USA was never in danger of existence as a political Union

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Treason is illegal. It's even clearly defined in the constitution and there is no doubt that the Confederates were guilty: they made war on the U.S., a war they started.

---

But it was not treason and secession is not illegal.

You really should read the U.S. Constitution some time...secession is no where forbidden in the document.

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

"The Constitution was to form a gov't for such States as should be willing to 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."

"Congress cannot declare war against a state or any number of states, by virtue of the constitution." Nor has the President any power to...declare a war of any sort. He is only authorized by law "to suppress insurrection against the government of a state."-Dunning

"Lincoln had long believed that Southern talk of secession was nothing but bluff. In 1856 he had stated in a speech in Galena, Illinois: "All this talk about the dissolution of the Union is humbug." He grossly underestimated secessionist sentiment and overestimated pro-Union strength in the upper South and border regions." Gutenberg's A Short Life of Abraham Lincoln, by John G. Nicolay

---

You keep using quotes from people that were found to be wrong. Texas vs White settled this at the highest level, unilateral secession is illegal, period. You can quote every "Lost Cause" apologist you like, it does not change the ruling.

---

You realize that most of those quotes are from Northern historians and Founding fathers right?

People can have opinions and are not "found to be wrong" by virtue of the fact that you don't like them.

Again lets quote a Northern Chief Justice of the Supreme Court....not a "lost causer" that you are scared of.

[The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court delivered opinion said. "If you bring these leaders to trial it will condemn the north, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion." Lincoln appointee Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, July 1867 (The Civil War, Vol. 3, p. 765)

And White was a case from years after the war....in 1861 there was not Constitutional amendment that prevented Secession, no Congressional law that prevented Secession, and no Supreme Court case that prevented Secession.

---

Has White vs Texas been revisited? No. It is the law of the land and been so for over 100 years..

---

A Supreme Court ruling that did not exist in 1861

In 1861 there as not Constitutional amendment that forbid secession, no Congressional law that forbid secession, and not Supreme Court case that forbid secession.

The States had every right to feel they could take back the rights to sovereignty they had granted to the Federal government and declare independence

---

No they didn't. Under the Supremacy Clause the States have no sovereignty. They must follow the Fed law even if they disagree. Sorry, your argument is Lost Cause BS ...

---

Wut? lol

Not even the most extreme Unionist has ever argued that the States don't have have soverignity.

Now they might argue the Union is unbreakable but not that the States have lost their soverignity by being members of that Union.

[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 Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, Shelby County v. Holder, June 25,)]

---

So, Kentucky doesn't have to follow the 13th Amendment? They didn't ratify, so they don't have to do it. Hmmph. Maybe you should call their State Capitol and let them know.

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

historian said:

---

Good point. Trump definitely is no Angel. However, many people support him because he has a record of success and on delivering on promises. Not many politicians can say that. The only modern example I can think of is Reagan, who was also one of the most popular in his day. For what it's worth, Reagan is the only president since Eisenhower to win two landslide victories. That says something about his popularity. Arguably, Reagan won 3 in that GHW Bush (#41) won by a sizable margin largely on Reagan's coattails. He then squandered it with, "Read my lips…"

---

What were his promises? He lied about building a wall and Mexico would pay for the wall. He lied about fiscal sanity leaving us with largest debt in history.

You may be referring to moving the Israeli capital to Jerusalem of which 80% of us could care less except for the fact we probably paid for that too.

Promise to end Obamacare? Failed in that regard too. Congress just wouldn't listen to him.

Debt: Failed on promise to eliminate

Manufacturing: Bringing jobs back failed by the end of his term.

---

1. Despite DEMOCRATIC opposition Trump built much of the wall and dramatically reduce illegal immigration.
2. All Federal budgets originated in the DEMOCRATIC controlled house. Short of vetoing them there was little Trump could do.
3. I definitely cared about Trumps courageous move of our embassy to Jerusalem. Had been promised for decades.
4. DEMOCRATIC controlled house refused to reform Obamacare.
5. Trump created record employment; especially for minorities.
Only the worst epidemic in US history stopped it. Are you seriously 'forgetting' that ?

---

Trump did some good things.

But, he built only 50 miles of new wall, and paid $15 billion for it.

He did not dramatically reduce immigration. Aside from the COVID dip, his #s were in line with Obama's.

He had a GOP congress, and his own proposed budgets dramatically increased spending. He did not fight for any spending cuts and has consistently denounced any GOP politicians who are open to entitlement reform.

---

hum.....I thought Mexico paid $15B.

Polling average - History recap - Aug 22

2016 - 🔵 H. Clinton +6
2020 - 🔵 Biden +8.8
2024 - 🔵 Harris +3.2@FiveThirtyEight

— Political Polls (@PpollingNumbers) August 22, 2024

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Treason is illegal. It's even clearly defined in the constitution and there is no doubt that the Confederates were guilty: they made war on the U.S., a war they started.

---

But it was not treason and secession is not illegal.

You really should read the U.S. Constitution some time...secession is no where forbidden in the document.

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

"The Constitution was to form a gov't for such States as should be willing to 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."

"Congress cannot declare war against a state or any number of states, by virtue of the constitution." Nor has the President any power to...declare a war of any sort. He is only authorized by law "to suppress insurrection against the government of a state."-Dunning

"Lincoln had long believed that Southern talk of secession was nothing but bluff. In 1856 he had stated in a speech in Galena, Illinois: "All this talk about the dissolution of the Union is humbug." He grossly underestimated secessionist sentiment and overestimated pro-Union strength in the upper South and border regions." Gutenberg's A Short Life of Abraham Lincoln, by John G. Nicolay

---

You keep using quotes from people that were found to be wrong. Texas vs White settled this at the highest level, unilateral secession is illegal, period. You can quote every "Lost Cause" apologist you like, it does not change the ruling.

---

You realize that most of those quotes are from Northern historians and Founding fathers right?

People can have opinions and are not "found to be wrong" by virtue of the fact that you don't like them.

Again lets quote a Northern Chief Justice of the Supreme Court....not a "lost causer" that you are scared of.

[The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court delivered opinion said. "If you bring these leaders to trial it will condemn the north, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion." Lincoln appointee Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, July 1867 (The Civil War, Vol. 3, p. 765)

And White was a case from years after the war....in 1861 there was not Constitutional amendment that prevented Secession, no Congressional law that prevented Secession, and no Supreme Court case that prevented Secession.

---

Has White vs Texas been revisited? No. It is the law of the land and been so for over 100 years..

---

A Supreme Court ruling that did not exist in 1861

In 1861 there as not Constitutional amendment that forbid secession, no Congressional law that forbid secession, and not Supreme Court case that forbid secession.

The States had every right to feel they could take back the rights to sovereignty they had granted to the Federal government and declare independence

---

No they didn't. Under the Supremacy Clause the States have no sovereignty. They must follow the Fed law even if they disagree. Sorry, your argument is Lost Cause BS ...

---

Wut? lol

Not even the most extreme Unionist has ever argued that the States don't have have soverignity.

Now they might argue the Union is unbreakable but not that the States have lost their soverignity by being members of that Union.

[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 Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, Shelby County v. Holder, June 25,)]

---

So, Kentucky doesn't have to follow the 13th Amendment? They didn't ratify, so they don't have to do it. Hmmph. Maybe you should call their State Capitol and let them know.

---

Anyone in the Union has to follow the Constitution.

But you said States had no sovereignty....the Supreme Court (and our history) says they do.

FLBear:
"Under the Supremacy Clause the States have no sovereignty"

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Treason is illegal. It's even clearly defined in the constitution and there is no doubt that the Confederates were guilty: they made war on the U.S., a war they started.

---

But it was not treason and secession is not illegal.

You really should read the U.S. Constitution some time...secession is no where forbidden in the document.

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

"The Constitution was to form a gov't for such States as should be willing to 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."

"Congress cannot declare war against a state or any number of states, by virtue of the constitution." Nor has the President any power to...declare a war of any sort. He is only authorized by law "to suppress insurrection against the government of a state."-Dunning

"Lincoln had long believed that Southern talk of secession was nothing but bluff. In 1856 he had stated in a speech in Galena, Illinois: "All this talk about the dissolution of the Union is humbug." He grossly underestimated secessionist sentiment and overestimated pro-Union strength in the upper South and border regions." Gutenberg's A Short Life of Abraham Lincoln, by John G. Nicolay

---

You keep using quotes from people that were found to be wrong. Texas vs White settled this at the highest level, unilateral secession is illegal, period. You can quote every "Lost Cause" apologist you like, it does not change the ruling.

---

You realize that most of those quotes are from Northern historians and Founding fathers right?

People can have opinions and are not "found to be wrong" by virtue of the fact that you don't like them.

Again lets quote a Northern Chief Justice of the Supreme Court....not a "lost causer" that you are scared of.

[The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court delivered opinion said. "If you bring these leaders to trial it will condemn the north, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion." Lincoln appointee Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, July 1867 (The Civil War, Vol. 3, p. 765)

And White was a case from years after the war....in 1861 there was not Constitutional amendment that prevented Secession, no Congressional law that prevented Secession, and no Supreme Court case that prevented Secession.

---

Has White vs Texas been revisited? No. It is the law of the land and been so for over 100 years..

---

A Supreme Court ruling that did not exist in 1861

In 1861 there as not Constitutional amendment that forbid secession, no Congressional law that forbid secession, and not Supreme Court case that forbid secession.

The States had every right to feel they could take back the rights to sovereignty they had granted to the Federal government and declare independence

---

No they didn't. Under the Supremacy Clause the States have no sovereignty. They must follow the Fed law even if they disagree. Sorry, your argument is Lost Cause BS ...

---

Wut? lol

Not even the most extreme Unionist has ever argued that the States don't have have soverignity.

Now they might argue the Union is unbreakable but not that the States have lost their soverignity by being members of that Union.

[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 Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, Shelby County v. Holder, June 25,)]

---

So, Kentucky doesn't have to follow the 13th Amendment? They didn't ratify, so they don't have to do it. Hmmph. Maybe you should call their State Capitol and let them know.

---

Anyone in the Union has to follow the Constitution.

But you said States had no sovereignty....the Supreme Court (and our history) says they do.

FLBear:
"Under the Supremacy Clause the States have no sovereignty"

---

To leave the Union... They have the sovereignty the Federal Govt gives them as a State of the Union.

"All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States."

Your favorite the 10th.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

The powers NOT delegated to the Fed are then the States, the left-overs.

In 1861, the States sovereignty was GRANTED by the Federal and what the Feds didn't want the States got. You wanted to discuss 1861 and then use Robert's 2024???

This is not a new question and the States powers/sovereignty has changed multiple times. We are NOW living in a strong State era since the Renquist Court. But, in 1830 to 1865 the definitions were different. States got less AFTER the Civil War and during the New Deal. But, I am guessing you know this...

So, for secession we have to look at 1861 definitions, but for Sovereignty 2024?

4th and Inches said:

---

sombear said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

historian said:

---

Good point. Trump definitely is no Angel. However, many people support him because he has a record of success and on delivering on promises. Not many politicians can say that. The only modern example I can think of is Reagan, who was also one of the most popular in his day. For what it's worth, Reagan is the only president since Eisenhower to win two landslide victories. That says something about his popularity. Arguably, Reagan won 3 in that GHW Bush (#41) won by a sizable margin largely on Reagan's coattails. He then squandered it with, "Read my lips…"

---

What were his promises? He lied about building a wall and Mexico would pay for the wall. He lied about fiscal sanity leaving us with largest debt in history.

You may be referring to moving the Israeli capital to Jerusalem of which 80% of us could care less except for the fact we probably paid for that too.

Promise to end Obamacare? Failed in that regard too. Congress just wouldn't listen to him.

Debt: Failed on promise to eliminate

Manufacturing: Bringing jobs back failed by the end of his term.

---

1. Despite DEMOCRATIC opposition Trump built much of the wall and dramatically reduce illegal immigration.
2. All Federal budgets originated in the DEMOCRATIC controlled house. Short of vetoing them there was little Trump could do.
3. I definitely cared about Trumps courageous move of our embassy to Jerusalem. Had been promised for decades.
4. DEMOCRATIC controlled house refused to reform Obamacare.
5. Trump created record employment; especially for minorities.
Only the worst epidemic in US history stopped it. Are you seriously 'forgetting' that ?

---

Trump did some good things.

But, he built only 50 miles of new wall, and paid $15 billion for it.

He did not dramatically reduce immigration. Aside from the COVID dip, his #s were in line with Obama's.

He had a GOP congress, and his own proposed budgets dramatically increased spending. He did not fight for any spending cuts and has consistently denounced any GOP politicians who are open to entitlement reform.

---

he had contracted more wall to be built, he repaired miles of wall that had already been built, but damaged. When Biden took office, they sold all the materials that had been purchased to continue the building process at surplus rates and canceled the contracts.

---

Facts: 4 years (2 with GOP Congress), 50 new miles, $15 billion.

Repairs had been already approved by the Obama admin.

---

meh, better than Bidens 7 electric gas stations for 7.5 Billion

You act like the GOP actually wanted to work with Trump on anything related to the border.. they like their cheap labor

---

Yes, better than Biden.

But W and Obama built more wall than Trump.

FLBear5630 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Treason is illegal. It's even clearly defined in the constitution and there is no doubt that the Confederates were guilty: they made war on the U.S., a war they started.

---

But it was not treason and secession is not illegal.

You really should read the U.S. Constitution some time...secession is no where forbidden in the document.

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

"The Constitution was to form a gov't for such States as should be willing to 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."

"Congress cannot declare war against a state or any number of states, by virtue of the constitution." Nor has the President any power to...declare a war of any sort. He is only authorized by law "to suppress insurrection against the government of a state."-Dunning

"Lincoln had long believed that Southern talk of secession was nothing but bluff. In 1856 he had stated in a speech in Galena, Illinois: "All this talk about the dissolution of the Union is humbug." He grossly underestimated secessionist sentiment and overestimated pro-Union strength in the upper South and border regions." Gutenberg's A Short Life of Abraham Lincoln, by John G. Nicolay

---

You keep using quotes from people that were found to be wrong. Texas vs White settled this at the highest level, unilateral secession is illegal, period. You can quote every "Lost Cause" apologist you like, it does not change the ruling.

---

You realize that most of those quotes are from Northern historians and Founding fathers right?

People can have opinions and are not "found to be wrong" by virtue of the fact that you don't like them.

Again lets quote a Northern Chief Justice of the Supreme Court....not a "lost causer" that you are scared of.

[The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court delivered opinion said. "If you bring these leaders to trial it will condemn the north, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion." Lincoln appointee Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, July 1867 (The Civil War, Vol. 3, p. 765)

And White was a case from years after the war....in 1861 there was not Constitutional amendment that prevented Secession, no Congressional law that prevented Secession, and no Supreme Court case that prevented Secession.

---

Has White vs Texas been revisited? No. It is the law of the land and been so for over 100 years..

---

A Supreme Court ruling that did not exist in 1861

In 1861 there as not Constitutional amendment that forbid secession, no Congressional law that forbid secession, and not Supreme Court case that forbid secession.

The States had every right to feel they could take back the rights to sovereignty they had granted to the Federal government and declare independence

---

No they didn't. Under the Supremacy Clause the States have no sovereignty. They must follow the Fed law even if they disagree. Sorry, your argument is Lost Cause BS ...

---

quote the fed law in place in 1860 or tenth amendment applies

---

Lincoln said it best...

The idea of a national government agreeing to its own termination was absurd. No constitution of any country in the world would offer provisions supporting its dissolution.
The Union is not a "voluntary association". In ratifying the Constitution, the agreement was that the states were subsidiary to the Federal government. The Constitution is not a contract with the states, but rather with the people; and even if it were, the principles of contractual law would bar unilateral secession. Consent from all parties to a contract is required to rescind it. If one party pulls out, then they would be in breach of the terms.
Third, Lincoln further pointed out that the country existed before the Constitution. The signatories of the Declaration of Independence were British colonists, and as such, they declared their independence as a Union the United States. They signed as representatives of the people of their colony to declare the nation independent, not 13 separate countries. Hence, the states were never "sovereign" to begin with.
Further, the Union was declared to be perpetual by the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union (note the title) and subsequently expressed to be made "more perfect" by the Preamble to the Constitution. The Constitution's purpose was to strengthen the horrendously weak central government of the Articles of the Confederation, under which the Union was already perpetual. It certainly doesn't follow that strengthening the central government would somehow make the Union non-perpetual. It's very hard to see how a perpetual union, being made to be more perfect, could be so if it could be destroyed by any state at will. "… in order to form a more perfect union" can mean a lot of things, but it can't mean that we aren't perpetual; or else it isn't more perfect.

---

… or no longer United.

Thank you for the excellent points. Lincoln viewed secession as an existential crisis for the nation. If allowed to stand, the country would be destroyed eventually. The U.S. was still relatively weak compared to the great powers of Europe so this makes some sense. It also helps to explain why he was so adamant.

The history of the antebellum south, and a century thereafter, is one in which only part of the population had second amendment rights. The blacks did not. They also had no effective representation in government.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Treason is illegal. It's even clearly defined in the constitution and there is no doubt that the Confederates were guilty: they made war on the U.S., a war they started.

---

But it was not treason and secession is not illegal.

You really should read the U.S. Constitution some time...secession is no where forbidden in the document.

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

"The Constitution was to form a gov't for such States as should be willing to 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."

"Congress cannot declare war against a state or any number of states, by virtue of the constitution." Nor has the President any power to...declare a war of any sort. He is only authorized by law "to suppress insurrection against the government of a state."-Dunning

"Lincoln had long believed that Southern talk of secession was nothing but bluff. In 1856 he had stated in a speech in Galena, Illinois: "All this talk about the dissolution of the Union is humbug." He grossly underestimated secessionist sentiment and overestimated pro-Union strength in the upper South and border regions." Gutenberg's A Short Life of Abraham Lincoln, by John G. Nicolay

---

You keep using quotes from people that were found to be wrong. Texas vs White settled this at the highest level, unilateral secession is illegal, period. You can quote every "Lost Cause" apologist you like, it does not change the ruling.

---

You realize that most of those quotes are from Northern historians and Founding fathers right?

People can have opinions and are not "found to be wrong" by virtue of the fact that you don't like them.

Again lets quote a Northern Chief Justice of the Supreme Court....not a "lost causer" that you are scared of.

[The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court delivered opinion said. "If you bring these leaders to trial it will condemn the north, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion." Lincoln appointee Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, July 1867 (The Civil War, Vol. 3, p. 765)

And White was a case from years after the war....in 1861 there was not Constitutional amendment that prevented Secession, no Congressional law that prevented Secession, and no Supreme Court case that prevented Secession.

---

Has White vs Texas been revisited? No. It is the law of the land and been so for over 100 years..

---

A Supreme Court ruling that did not exist in 1861

In 1861 there as not Constitutional amendment that forbid secession, no Congressional law that forbid secession, and not Supreme Court case that forbid secession.

The States had every right to feel they could take back the rights to sovereignty they had granted to the Federal government and declare independence

---

No they didn't. Under the Supremacy Clause the States have no sovereignty. They must follow the Fed law even if they disagree. Sorry, your argument is Lost Cause BS ...

---

Wut? lol

Not even the most extreme Unionist has ever argued that the States don't have have soverignity.

Now they might argue the Union is unbreakable but not that the States have lost their soverignity by being members of that Union.

[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 Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, Shelby County v. Holder, June 25,)]

---

So, Kentucky doesn't have to follow the 13th Amendment? They didn't ratify, so they don't have to do it. Hmmph. Maybe you should call their State Capitol and let them know.

---

thats a nonsensical reply

Oprah's letter to President Trump: pic.twitter.com/QY1kYifPJS

— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) August 22, 2024

No way Kamala the Kommie has a chance in Texas. Any contrary rumors are false hopes by Leftists.

historian said:

---

No way Kamala the Kommie has a chance in Texas. Any contrary rumors are false hopes by Leftists.

---

they tried that crap in 2020 as well. I think it might have been closer in the Trump v Biden polls. They were way off in 2020

Given the smallest gap between R and D in every recent election was around 5% combined with the fact that Hispanics are consistently polling more R and people moving into Texas are consistently polling to the right of a native Texans, LMFAO. Hell no.

I'm suspecting he's going to launch some kind of TrumpCoin or MAGACoin or something.

JUST IN: Donald Trump teases crypto project and says "for too long, the average American has been squeezed by the big banks and financial elites.

It's time we take a stand together." pic.twitter.com/MQhz7WiHMI

— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) August 22, 2024

Newsweek: New Poll Shows Harris Leading Zero Battleground States

https://twitchy.com/brettt/2024/08/21/newsweek-new-poll-shows-harris-leading-zero-battleground-states-n2399942

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Treason is illegal. It's even clearly defined in the constitution and there is no doubt that the Confederates were guilty: they made war on the U.S., a war they started.

---

But it was not treason and secession is not illegal.

You really should read the U.S. Constitution some time...secession is no where forbidden in the document.

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

"The Constitution was to form a gov't for such States as should be willing to 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."

"Congress cannot declare war against a state or any number of states, by virtue of the constitution." Nor has the President any power to...declare a war of any sort. He is only authorized by law "to suppress insurrection against the government of a state."-Dunning

"Lincoln had long believed that Southern talk of secession was nothing but bluff. In 1856 he had stated in a speech in Galena, Illinois: "All this talk about the dissolution of the Union is humbug." He grossly underestimated secessionist sentiment and overestimated pro-Union strength in the upper South and border regions." Gutenberg's A Short Life of Abraham Lincoln, by John G. Nicolay

---

You keep using quotes from people that were found to be wrong. Texas vs White settled this at the highest level, unilateral secession is illegal, period. You can quote every "Lost Cause" apologist you like, it does not change the ruling.

---

You realize that most of those quotes are from Northern historians and Founding fathers right?

People can have opinions and are not "found to be wrong" by virtue of the fact that you don't like them.

Again lets quote a Northern Chief Justice of the Supreme Court....not a "lost causer" that you are scared of.

[The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court delivered opinion said. "If you bring these leaders to trial it will condemn the north, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion." Lincoln appointee Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, July 1867 (The Civil War, Vol. 3, p. 765)

And White was a case from years after the war....in 1861 there was not Constitutional amendment that prevented Secession, no Congressional law that prevented Secession, and no Supreme Court case that prevented Secession.

---

Has White vs Texas been revisited? No. It is the law of the land and been so for over 100 years..

---

A Supreme Court ruling that did not exist in 1861

In 1861 there as not Constitutional amendment that forbid secession, no Congressional law that forbid secession, and not Supreme Court case that forbid secession.

The States had every right to feel they could take back the rights to sovereignty they had granted to the Federal government and declare independence

---

No they didn't. Under the Supremacy Clause the States have no sovereignty. They must follow the Fed law even if they disagree. Sorry, your argument is Lost Cause BS ...

---

Wut? lol

Not even the most extreme Unionist has ever argued that the States don't have have soverignity.

Now they might argue the Union is unbreakable but not that the States have lost their soverignity by being members of that Union.

[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 Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, Shelby County v. Holder, June 25,)]

---

So, Kentucky doesn't have to follow the 13th Amendment? They didn't ratify, so they don't have to do it. Hmmph. Maybe you should call their State Capitol and let them know.

---

Anyone in the Union has to follow the Constitution.

But you said States had no sovereignty....the Supreme Court (and our history) says they do.

FLBear:
"Under the Supremacy Clause the States have no sovereignty"

---

In 1861, the States sovereignty was GRANTED by the Federal and what the Feds didn't want the States got. You wanted to discuss 1861 and then use Robert's 2024???

---

1. State sovereignty is not up for debate...its settled Constitutional law.

State Sovereignty was not granted by the Federal government...it existed before the Federal government was created. The Federal Government was created by the States and People...and granted limited enumerated powers.

You know this....

"The citizens of each state are the ultimate sovereign, not the federal government. The federal government is supposed to be a servant of the people, and the collective states, not their master." ~ Lloyd Paul Stryker, (Andrew Johnson: A Study in Courage, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1930

The Holder case from 2013 was not posted to defend secession but to counter your foolish statement that the States lack Sovereignty.

Roberts and a modern Supreme Court affirm that they in fact DO!


[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 Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, Shelby County v. Holder, June 25,]


2. I am happy to have a discussion on the merits of State Secession which is a different debatable matter.

In fact we have two threads for that.... on on the paid board and one on the free

https://sicem365.com/forums/19/topics/136952

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/138500

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Treason is illegal. It's even clearly defined in the constitution and there is no doubt that the Confederates were guilty: they made war on the U.S., a war they started.

---

But it was not treason and secession is not illegal.

You really should read the U.S. Constitution some time...secession is no where forbidden in the document.

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

"The Constitution was to form a gov't for such States as should be willing to 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."

"Congress cannot declare war against a state or any number of states, by virtue of the constitution." Nor has the President any power to...declare a war of any sort. He is only authorized by law "to suppress insurrection against the government of a state."-Dunning

"Lincoln had long believed that Southern talk of secession was nothing but bluff. In 1856 he had stated in a speech in Galena, Illinois: "All this talk about the dissolution of the Union is humbug." He grossly underestimated secessionist sentiment and overestimated pro-Union strength in the upper South and border regions." Gutenberg's A Short Life of Abraham Lincoln, by John G. Nicolay

---

You keep using quotes from people that were found to be wrong. Texas vs White settled this at the highest level, unilateral secession is illegal, period. You can quote every "Lost Cause" apologist you like, it does not change the ruling.

---

You realize that most of those quotes are from Northern historians and Founding fathers right?

People can have opinions and are not "found to be wrong" by virtue of the fact that you don't like them.

Again lets quote a Northern Chief Justice of the Supreme Court....not a "lost causer" that you are scared of.

[The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court delivered opinion said. "If you bring these leaders to trial it will condemn the north, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion." Lincoln appointee Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, July 1867 (The Civil War, Vol. 3, p. 765)

And White was a case from years after the war....in 1861 there was not Constitutional amendment that prevented Secession, no Congressional law that prevented Secession, and no Supreme Court case that prevented Secession.

---

Has White vs Texas been revisited? No. It is the law of the land and been so for over 100 years..

---

A Supreme Court ruling that did not exist in 1861

In 1861 there as not Constitutional amendment that forbid secession, no Congressional law that forbid secession, and not Supreme Court case that forbid secession.

The States had every right to feel they could take back the rights to sovereignty they had granted to the Federal government and declare independence

---

No they didn't. Under the Supremacy Clause the States have no sovereignty. They must follow the Fed law even if they disagree. Sorry, your argument is Lost Cause BS ...

---

Wut? lol

Not even the most extreme Unionist has ever argued that the States don't have have soverignity.

Now they might argue the Union is unbreakable but not that the States have lost their soverignity by being members of that Union.

[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 Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, Shelby County v. Holder, June 25,)]

---

So, Kentucky doesn't have to follow the 13th Amendment? They didn't ratify, so they don't have to do it. Hmmph. Maybe you should call their State Capitol and let them know.

---

Anyone in the Union has to follow the Constitution.

But you said States had no sovereignty....the Supreme Court (and our history) says they do.

FLBear:
"Under the Supremacy Clause the States have no sovereignty"

---

" the States sovereignty was GRANTED by the Federal and what the Feds didn't want the States got."

---

This might be one of the worst takes ever on a historical discussion on this forum.

The Feds did not "grant" anything....the States and the People granted power to the Federal government.

"The order of classification of these powers is, first the people, then the State Government, and then the Federal Government. The people in their sovereign capacity & right have absolute power over & above all other powers."-Samuel Morse

"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

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Treason is illegal. It's even clearly defined in the constitution and there is no doubt that the Confederates were guilty: they made war on the U.S., a war they started.

---

But it was not treason and secession is not illegal.

You really should read the U.S. Constitution some time...secession is no where forbidden in the document.

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

"The Constitution was to form a gov't for such States as should be willing to 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."

"Congress cannot declare war against a state or any number of states, by virtue of the constitution." Nor has the President any power to...declare a war of any sort. He is only authorized by law "to suppress insurrection against the government of a state."-Dunning

"Lincoln had long believed that Southern talk of secession was nothing but bluff. In 1856 he had stated in a speech in Galena, Illinois: "All this talk about the dissolution of the Union is humbug." He grossly underestimated secessionist sentiment and overestimated pro-Union strength in the upper South and border regions." Gutenberg's A Short Life of Abraham Lincoln, by John G. Nicolay

---

You keep using quotes from people that were found to be wrong. Texas vs White settled this at the highest level, unilateral secession is illegal, period. You can quote every "Lost Cause" apologist you like, it does not change the ruling.

---

You realize that most of those quotes are from Northern historians and Founding fathers right?

People can have opinions and are not "found to be wrong" by virtue of the fact that you don't like them.

Again lets quote a Northern Chief Justice of the Supreme Court....not a "lost causer" that you are scared of.

[The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court delivered opinion said. "If you bring these leaders to trial it will condemn the north, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion." Lincoln appointee Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, July 1867 (The Civil War, Vol. 3, p. 765)

And White was a case from years after the war....in 1861 there was not Constitutional amendment that prevented Secession, no Congressional law that prevented Secession, and no Supreme Court case that prevented Secession.

---

Has White vs Texas been revisited? No. It is the law of the land and been so for over 100 years..

---

A Supreme Court ruling that did not exist in 1861

In 1861 there as not Constitutional amendment that forbid secession, no Congressional law that forbid secession, and not Supreme Court case that forbid secession.

The States had every right to feel they could take back the rights to sovereignty they had granted to the Federal government and declare independence

---

No they didn't. Under the Supremacy Clause the States have no sovereignty. They must follow the Fed law even if they disagree. Sorry, your argument is Lost Cause BS ...

---

Wut? lol

Not even the most extreme Unionist has ever argued that the States don't have have soverignity.

Now they might argue the Union is unbreakable but not that the States have lost their soverignity by being members of that Union.

[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 Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, Shelby County v. Holder, June 25,)]

---

So, Kentucky doesn't have to follow the 13th Amendment? They didn't ratify, so they don't have to do it. Hmmph. Maybe you should call their State Capitol and let them know.

---

Anyone in the Union has to follow the Constitution.

But you said States had no sovereignty....the Supreme Court (and our history) says they do.

FLBear:
"Under the Supremacy Clause the States have no sovereignty"

---

In 1861, the States sovereignty was GRANTED by the Federal and what the Feds didn't want the States got. You wanted to discuss 1861 and then use Robert's 2024???

---

1. State sovereignty is not up for debate...its settled Constitutional law.

State Sovereignty was not granted by the Federal government...it existed before the Federal government was created. The Federal Government was created by the States and People...and granted limited enumerated powers.

You know this....

"The citizens of each state are the ultimate sovereign, not the federal government. The federal government is supposed to be a servant of the people, and the collective states, not their master." ~ Lloyd Paul Stryker, (Andrew Johnson: A Study in Courage, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1930

The Holder case from 2013 was not posted to defend secession but to counter your foolish statement that the States lack Sovereignty.

Roberts and a modern Supreme Court affirm that they in fact DO!


[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 Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, Shelby County v. Holder, June 25,]


2. I am happy to have a discussion on the merits of State Secession which is a different debatable matter.

In fact we have two threads for that.... on on the paid board and one on the free

https://sicem365.com/forums/19/topics/136952

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/138500

---

The two are intertwined, especially if talking about the State's rights to secede in 1861. Roberts case in 2013 is irrelevant to decisions made in 1860. Lincoln and the Nation's view of State Sovereignty and the right for a "State" to just leave on its own the Constitution superseded the Articles of Confederation, but the principles in the Articles are still part of the Constitution. You have a problem with Lincoln's definitions, which were driven by his understanding at the time which is that States gave up independent sovereignty to be part of the Union. The States are subordinate to the Union. And as time went on it got worse for secession with Texas vs White. A State cannot unilaterally leave. It was implied in 1861 and settled in Texas vs White.

What Roberts has to say in his opinion in 2013 really has nothing to do with the Civil War. Now, if California or Texas want to leave now, then his opinion becomes relevant...

Just admit you are wrong and we are done. : )

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Treason is illegal. It's even clearly defined in the constitution and there is no doubt that the Confederates were guilty: they made war on the U.S., a war they started.

---

But it was not treason and secession is not illegal.

You really should read the U.S. Constitution some time...secession is no where forbidden in the document.

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

"The Constitution was to form a gov't for such States as should be willing to 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."

"Congress cannot declare war against a state or any number of states, by virtue of the constitution." Nor has the President any power to...declare a war of any sort. He is only authorized by law "to suppress insurrection against the government of a state."-Dunning

"Lincoln had long believed that Southern talk of secession was nothing but bluff. In 1856 he had stated in a speech in Galena, Illinois: "All this talk about the dissolution of the Union is humbug." He grossly underestimated secessionist sentiment and overestimated pro-Union strength in the upper South and border regions." Gutenberg's A Short Life of Abraham Lincoln, by John G. Nicolay

---

You keep using quotes from people that were found to be wrong. Texas vs White settled this at the highest level, unilateral secession is illegal, period. You can quote every "Lost Cause" apologist you like, it does not change the ruling.

---

You realize that most of those quotes are from Northern historians and Founding fathers right?

People can have opinions and are not "found to be wrong" by virtue of the fact that you don't like them.

Again lets quote a Northern Chief Justice of the Supreme Court....not a "lost causer" that you are scared of.

[The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court delivered opinion said. "If you bring these leaders to trial it will condemn the north, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion." Lincoln appointee Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, July 1867 (The Civil War, Vol. 3, p. 765)

And White was a case from years after the war....in 1861 there was not Constitutional amendment that prevented Secession, no Congressional law that prevented Secession, and no Supreme Court case that prevented Secession.

---

Has White vs Texas been revisited? No. It is the law of the land and been so for over 100 years..

---

A Supreme Court ruling that did not exist in 1861

In 1861 there as not Constitutional amendment that forbid secession, no Congressional law that forbid secession, and not Supreme Court case that forbid secession.

The States had every right to feel they could take back the rights to sovereignty they had granted to the Federal government and declare independence

---

No they didn't. Under the Supremacy Clause the States have no sovereignty. They must follow the Fed law even if they disagree. Sorry, your argument is Lost Cause BS ...

---

Wut? lol

Not even the most extreme Unionist has ever argued that the States don't have have soverignity.

Now they might argue the Union is unbreakable but not that the States have lost their soverignity by being members of that Union.

[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 Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, Shelby County v. Holder, June 25,)]

---

So, Kentucky doesn't have to follow the 13th Amendment? They didn't ratify, so they don't have to do it. Hmmph. Maybe you should call their State Capitol and let them know.

---

Anyone in the Union has to follow the Constitution.

But you said States had no sovereignty....the Supreme Court (and our history) says they do.

FLBear:
"Under the Supremacy Clause the States have no sovereignty"

---

To leave the Union... They have the sovereignty the Federal Govt gives them as a State of the Union.

"All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States."

Your favorite the 10th.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

The powers NOT delegated to the Fed are then the States, the left-overs.

In 1861, the States sovereignty was GRANTED by the Federal and what the Feds didn't want the States got. You wanted to discuss 1861 and then use Robert's 2024???

This is not a new question and the States powers/sovereignty has changed multiple times. We are NOW living in a strong State era since the Renquist Court. But, in 1830 to 1865 the definitions were different. States got less AFTER the Civil War and during the New Deal. But, I am guessing you know this...

So, for secession we have to look at 1861 definitions, but for Sovereignty 2024?

---

That's not what the constitution says. It doesn't say that the federal government gets what they want and then what's left over is the states. It says everything is the states except for these limited powers.

A delegate is A person authorized to act as representative for another; a deputy or agent. Delegated authority is given by somebody not taken.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Treason is illegal. It's even clearly defined in the constitution and there is no doubt that the Confederates were guilty: they made war on the U.S., a war they started.

---

But it was not treason and secession is not illegal.

You really should read the U.S. Constitution some time...secession is no where forbidden in the document.

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

"The Constitution was to form a gov't for such States as should be willing to 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."

"Congress cannot declare war against a state or any number of states, by virtue of the constitution." Nor has the President any power to...declare a war of any sort. He is only authorized by law "to suppress insurrection against the government of a state."-Dunning

"Lincoln had long believed that Southern talk of secession was nothing but bluff. In 1856 he had stated in a speech in Galena, Illinois: "All this talk about the dissolution of the Union is humbug." He grossly underestimated secessionist sentiment and overestimated pro-Union strength in the upper South and border regions." Gutenberg's A Short Life of Abraham Lincoln, by John G. Nicolay

---

You keep using quotes from people that were found to be wrong. Texas vs White settled this at the highest level, unilateral secession is illegal, period. You can quote every "Lost Cause" apologist you like, it does not change the ruling.

---

You realize that most of those quotes are from Northern historians and Founding fathers right?

People can have opinions and are not "found to be wrong" by virtue of the fact that you don't like them.

Again lets quote a Northern Chief Justice of the Supreme Court....not a "lost causer" that you are scared of.

[The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court delivered opinion said. "If you bring these leaders to trial it will condemn the north, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion." Lincoln appointee Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, July 1867 (The Civil War, Vol. 3, p. 765)

And White was a case from years after the war....in 1861 there was not Constitutional amendment that prevented Secession, no Congressional law that prevented Secession, and no Supreme Court case that prevented Secession.

---

Has White vs Texas been revisited? No. It is the law of the land and been so for over 100 years..

---

A Supreme Court ruling that did not exist in 1861

In 1861 there as not Constitutional amendment that forbid secession, no Congressional law that forbid secession, and not Supreme Court case that forbid secession.

The States had every right to feel they could take back the rights to sovereignty they had granted to the Federal government and declare independence

---

No they didn't. Under the Supremacy Clause the States have no sovereignty. They must follow the Fed law even if they disagree. Sorry, your argument is Lost Cause BS ...

---

Wut? lol

Not even the most extreme Unionist has ever argued that the States don't have have soverignity.

Now they might argue the Union is unbreakable but not that the States have lost their soverignity by being members of that Union.

[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 Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, Shelby County v. Holder, June 25,)]

---

So, Kentucky doesn't have to follow the 13th Amendment? They didn't ratify, so they don't have to do it. Hmmph. Maybe you should call their State Capitol and let them know.

---

Anyone in the Union has to follow the Constitution.

But you said States had no sovereignty....the Supreme Court (and our history) says they do.

FLBear:
"Under the Supremacy Clause the States have no sovereignty"

---

In 1861, the States sovereignty was GRANTED by the Federal and what the Feds didn't want the States got. You wanted to discuss 1861 and then use Robert's 2024???

---

1. State sovereignty is not up for debate...its settled Constitutional law.

State Sovereignty was not granted by the Federal government...it existed before the Federal government was created. The Federal Government was created by the States and People...and granted limited enumerated powers.

You know this....

"The citizens of each state are the ultimate sovereign, not the federal government. The federal government is supposed to be a servant of the people, and the collective states, not their master." ~ Lloyd Paul Stryker, (Andrew Johnson: A Study in Courage, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1930

The Holder case from 2013 was not posted to defend secession but to counter your foolish statement that the States lack Sovereignty.

Roberts and a modern Supreme Court affirm that they in fact DO!


[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 Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, Shelby County v. Holder, June 25,]


2. I am happy to have a discussion on the merits of State Secession which is a different debatable matter.

In fact we have two threads for that.... on on the paid board and one on the free

https://sicem365.com/forums/19/topics/136952

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/138500

---

What Roberts has to say in his opinion in 2013 really has nothing to do with the Civil War )

---

No one said it did

The Roberts quote was posted specifically to refute your very very very stupid statement that the States lack Sovereignty.

A modern Supreme Court in 2013 affirms they do and you are wrong.

(Secession is another debate)

States having sovereignty is not up for debate

4th and Inches said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Treason is illegal. It's even clearly defined in the constitution and there is no doubt that the Confederates were guilty: they made war on the U.S., a war they started.

---

But it was not treason and secession is not illegal.

You really should read the U.S. Constitution some time...secession is no where forbidden in the document.

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

"The Constitution was to form a gov't for such States as should be willing to 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."

"Congress cannot declare war against a state or any number of states, by virtue of the constitution." Nor has the President any power to...declare a war of any sort. He is only authorized by law "to suppress insurrection against the government of a state."-Dunning

"Lincoln had long believed that Southern talk of secession was nothing but bluff. In 1856 he had stated in a speech in Galena, Illinois: "All this talk about the dissolution of the Union is humbug." He grossly underestimated secessionist sentiment and overestimated pro-Union strength in the upper South and border regions." Gutenberg's A Short Life of Abraham Lincoln, by John G. Nicolay

---

You keep using quotes from people that were found to be wrong. Texas vs White settled this at the highest level, unilateral secession is illegal, period. You can quote every "Lost Cause" apologist you like, it does not change the ruling.

---

You realize that most of those quotes are from Northern historians and Founding fathers right?

People can have opinions and are not "found to be wrong" by virtue of the fact that you don't like them.

Again lets quote a Northern Chief Justice of the Supreme Court....not a "lost causer" that you are scared of.

[The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court delivered opinion said. "If you bring these leaders to trial it will condemn the north, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion." Lincoln appointee Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, July 1867 (The Civil War, Vol. 3, p. 765)

And White was a case from years after the war....in 1861 there was not Constitutional amendment that prevented Secession, no Congressional law that prevented Secession, and no Supreme Court case that prevented Secession.

---

Has White vs Texas been revisited? No. It is the law of the land and been so for over 100 years..

---

A Supreme Court ruling that did not exist in 1861

In 1861 there as not Constitutional amendment that forbid secession, no Congressional law that forbid secession, and not Supreme Court case that forbid secession.

The States had every right to feel they could take back the rights to sovereignty they had granted to the Federal government and declare independence

---

No they didn't. Under the Supremacy Clause the States have no sovereignty. They must follow the Fed law even if they disagree. Sorry, your argument is Lost Cause BS ...

---

Wut? lol

Not even the most extreme Unionist has ever argued that the States don't have have soverignity.

Now they might argue the Union is unbreakable but not that the States have lost their soverignity by being members of that Union.

[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 Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, Shelby County v. Holder, June 25,)]

---

So, Kentucky doesn't have to follow the 13th Amendment? They didn't ratify, so they don't have to do it. Hmmph. Maybe you should call their State Capitol and let them know.

---

Anyone in the Union has to follow the Constitution.

But you said States had no sovereignty....the Supreme Court (and our history) says they do.

FLBear:
"Under the Supremacy Clause the States have no sovereignty"

---

To leave the Union... They have the sovereignty the Federal Govt gives them as a State of the Union.

"All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States."

Your favorite the 10th.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

The powers NOT delegated to the Fed are then the States, the left-overs.

In 1861, the States sovereignty was GRANTED by the Federal and what the Feds didn't want the States got. You wanted to discuss 1861 and then use Robert's 2024???

This is not a new question and the States powers/sovereignty has changed multiple times. We are NOW living in a strong State era since the Renquist Court. But, in 1830 to 1865 the definitions were different. States got less AFTER the Civil War and during the New Deal. But, I am guessing you know this...

So, for secession we have to look at 1861 definitions, but for Sovereignty 2024?

---

That's not what the constitution says. It doesn't say that the federal government gets what they want and then what's left over is the states. It says everything is the states except for these limited powers.

---

He does not know what the Constitution says or the history of how it was created.

He literally thinks the Federal government grants rights to the States and the people….

One of the most Constitutionally and historically illiterate takes I have ever seen on here.

boognish_bear said:

---

---

Sounds like a train wreck, I'll bring the popcorn