historian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Doesn't mean the Constitution actually says what you claim. Courts have been wrong many times before.

And there is a ton of writing from some great minds saying secession is not and was never Treason.

You know, kind of why none of the Confederates was ever tried for Treason.

---

I never said secession was treason, but I did quote almost directly the constitutional definition of treason. It must definitely says exactly what I claim. Secession can still be illegitimate without being treason.

Article III, Section 3:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

The direct quote for those who want to know.

---

Yes, and that applies to people who were/are citizens or legal residents at the time of the offence.

NOT the case for the Civil War.

Again, the heart of why Confederate soldiers and leaders were never tried for Treason.

Given your username, I am amused you have lost the context of the history here.

historian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

historian said:

---

I read the constitution.

I'm also posting while watching the basketball game.

---

Secession means not part of the country.

We gonna charge the Germans in WW1 with Treason, maybe the Iraqi's in the Gulf War?

Because you are playing loose with the definitions there.

---

The U.S. never accepted secession as legitimate. Just because somebody says something does not make it real. Bruce Jenner is still a man.

---

Biological reality can not be denied

While on the other hand it's a very open question if the States of the Union ever signed away their right to take back their sovereignty once they joined the United States

I doubt Virginia would have ever joined if they thought they could never leave

I doubt Texas Founding Fathers (having just fought a war of secession against Mexico) would have agreed they were signing their rights over forever to DC

The fact that millions of men took to the battlefield over the issue would tell it was up for debate and certainly not clear

historian said:

---

The constitution defines treason as making war against the U.S. Clearly, every soldier in the confederate army was guilty.

---

Then why didn't they put them on trail?

Besides the logistical nightmare of putting a million men on trail…..the Supreme Court advised the Executive & Congress that no conviction could be obtained.

As a test case they spent months getting a trial ready for Jeff Davis before dropping the charges and giving it up for a hopeless case.

Soldiers following the lawful orders of their State officials & Legislatures could not be convicted of treason.

State officials and legislatures exercising the right of session could also not be found guilty… because no where in the U.S. Constitution is preventing State secession a power granted to the Federal Government.

All powers not explicitly granted to the Federal Government belong to the States and the People.

Oldbear83 said:

---

historian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Doesn't mean the Constitution actually says what you claim. Courts have been wrong many times before.

And there is a ton of writing from some great minds saying secession is not and was never Treason.

You know, kind of why none of the Confederates was ever tried for Treason.

---

I never said secession was treason, but I did quote almost directly the constitutional definition of treason. It must definitely says exactly what I claim. Secession can still be illegitimate without being treason.

Article III, Section 3:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

The direct quote for those who want to know.

---

Yes, and that applies to people who were/are citizens or legal residents at the time of the offence.

NOT the case for the Civil War.

Again, the heart of why Confederate soldiers and leaders were never tried for Treason.

Given your username, I am amused you have lost the context of the history here.

---

According to the U.S. government they were citizens of the US and never left because secession was not legal.

You can keep making the same circular argument all you want but you're wasting your time. The position is only valid if secession is and it clearly was not legitimate to Pres. Lincoln or the government.

The soldiers were never tried for treason because they were granted amnesty. That was inevitable because of the sheer numbers involved and the need for the nation to recover from the war.

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

historian said:

---

I read the constitution.

I'm also posting while watching the basketball game.

---

Secession means not part of the country.

We gonna charge the Germans in WW1 with Treason, maybe the Iraqi's in the Gulf War?

Because you are playing loose with the definitions there.

---

The U.S. never accepted secession as legitimate. Just because somebody says something does not make it real. Bruce Jenner is still a man.

---

Biological reality can not be denied

While on the other hand it's a very open question if the States of the Union ever signed away their right to take back their sovereignty once they joined the United States

I doubt Virginia would have ever joined if they thought they could never leave

I doubt Texas Founding Fathers (having just fought a war of secession against Mexico) would have agreed they were signing their rights over forever to DC

The fact that millions of men took to the battlefield over the issue would tell it was up for debate and certainly not clear

---

The Texas Revolution did not begin with Articles of Secession. It began with a Declaration of Independence. They are not the same thing.

Amnesty

historian said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

historian said:

---

I read the constitution.

I'm also posting while watching the basketball game.

---

Secession means not part of the country.

We gonna charge the Germans in WW1 with Treason, maybe the Iraqi's in the Gulf War?

Because you are playing loose with the definitions there.

---

The U.S. never accepted secession as legitimate. Just because somebody says something does not make it real. Bruce Jenner is still a man.

---

Biological reality can not be denied

While on the other hand it's a very open question if the States of the Union ever signed away their right to take back their sovereignty once they joined the United States

I doubt Virginia would have ever joined if they thought they could never leave

I doubt Texas Founding Fathers (having just fought a war of secession against Mexico) would have agreed they were signing their rights over forever to DC

The fact that millions of men took to the battlefield over the issue would tell it was up for debate and certainly not clear

---

The Texas Revolution did not begin with Articles of Secession. It began with a Declaration of Independence. They are not the same thing.

---

A Declaration of Independence from the United States of Mexico

If Texas had right to break off from Mexico City in 1836

Then of course Texas had the right to break off from Washington DC in 1861

(Especially since the U.S. constitution does not prevent or outlaw State secession)

YOU are the one playing games.

The FACT here is that Confederate soldiers and leaders were never tried for Treason.

The FACT here is that at the time of the Civil War, there was no Supreme Court ruling that you could not secede, nor any such clause in the Constitution.

The FACT here is that the Supreme Court has been very much wrong in some of their decisions, proven by the fact that the SCOTUS has reversed decisions. So your snitty insistence that seceding makes one a traitor is not supported by anything better than pique.

Midnight Rider said:

---

What in the hell is Trump trying to accomplish by renaming the Gulf of Mexico? Is this somehow going to help all Americans and make America great again? Or is this some sort of virtue signaling to his base?

Help me out here.

---

Still waiting ... do you oppose changing the names of places and institutions as a virtue signal?

historian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

historian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Doesn't mean the Constitution actually says what you claim. Courts have been wrong many times before.

And there is a ton of writing from some great minds saying secession is not and was never Treason.

You know, kind of why none of the Confederates was ever tried for Treason.

---

I never said secession was treason, but I did quote almost directly the constitutional definition of treason. It must definitely says exactly what I claim. Secession can still be illegitimate without being treason.

Article III, Section 3:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

The direct quote for those who want to know.

---

Yes, and that applies to people who were/are citizens or legal residents at the time of the offence.

NOT the case for the Civil War.

Again, the heart of why Confederate soldiers and leaders were never tried for Treason.

Given your username, I am amused you have lost the context of the history here.

---

According to the U.S. government they were citizens of the US and never left because secession was not legal.

You can keep making the same circular argument all you want but you're wasting your time. The position is only valid if secession is and it clearly was not legitimate to Pres. Lincoln or the government.

The soldiers were never tried for treason because they were granted amnesty. That was inevitable because of the sheer numbers involved and the need for the nation to recover from the war.

---

Could be mistaken but I thought prior to the Civil War states possessed the legal right to secede from the Union.

And supposedly even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court informally told Lincoln this.

Of course none of this really matters anymore. The north applied their far superior numbers and imposed their will on the South.

What matters, is the question of whether the Constitution means what it says and cannot be twisted to fit the whim of politicians, or the Constitution is whatever is popular at the moment.

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

historian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Doesn't mean the Constitution actually says what you claim. Courts have been wrong many times before.

And there is a ton of writing from some great minds saying secession is not and was never Treason.

You know, kind of why none of the Confederates was ever tried for Treason.

---

I never said secession was treason, but I did quote almost directly the constitutional definition of treason. It must definitely says exactly what I claim. Secession can still be illegitimate without being treason.

Article III, Section 3:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

The direct quote for those who want to know.

---

Yes, and that applies to people who were/are citizens or legal residents at the time of the offence.

NOT the case for the Civil War.

Again, the heart of why Confederate soldiers and leaders were never tried for Treason.

Given your username, I am amused you have lost the context of the history here.

---

According to the U.S. government they were citizens of the US and never left because secession was not legal.

You can keep making the same circular argument all you want but you're wasting your time. The position is only valid if secession is and it clearly was not legitimate to Pres. Lincoln or the government.

The soldiers were never tried for treason because they were granted amnesty. That was inevitable because of the sheer numbers involved and the need for the nation to recover from the war.

---

And supposedly even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court informally told Lincoln this.

Of course none of this really matters anymore. The north applied their far superior numbers and imposed their will on the South.

---

Chief Justice Chase did say that...

"If you bring these leaders to trial it will condemn the North," Chase had warned his former cabinet colleagues in July, "for by the Constitution secession is not rebellion." As for the rebel chieftain, the authorities would have done better not to apprehend him. "Lincoln wanted Jefferson Davis to escape, and he was right. His capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one. We cannot convict him of treason. Secession is settled. Let it stay settled."~ Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase (Burke Davis, "The Long Surrender", 1985,; Shelby Foote, "The Civil War," V3, p. 1035)

Certainly secession was an open question in 1861.....in fact for most of the early History of the USA it had been New England often threating to leave.

"Even after the southern States had acted upon the old-time theory & seceded, the North for a moment was not sure that they had acted beyond their right. It required the terrible exercise of prolonged war to impart to the national idea diffused vitality & authentic power." -Wilson

"The advocates of secession were not confined in our history to any one section. They had appeared in the hills of PA, they had met in convention in New England, they had adopted resolutions in KY, they had finally taken up arms in SC."-President Coolidge 5/30/1927

Oldbear83 said:

---

YOU are the one playing games.

The FACT here is that Confederate soldiers and leaders were never tried for Treason.

The FACT here is that at the time of the Civil War, there was no Supreme Court ruling that you could not secede, nor any such clause in the Constitution.

The FACT here is that the Supreme Court has been very much wrong in some of their decisions, proven by the fact that the SCOTUS has reversed decisions. So your snitty insistence that seceding makes one a traitor is not supported by anything better than pique.

---

They weren't tried for treason because they were amnestied. You're not paying attention. I've already said that.

I never said seceding makes one a traitor. That's your red herring. Who is being snitty???

I quoted the constitutional definition of treason, making war in the US, which confederates were definitely guilty of doing. Again you are not paying attention.

You are wasting my time.

historian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

YOU are the one playing games.

The FACT here is that Confederate soldiers and leaders were never tried for Treason.

The FACT here is that at the time of the Civil War, there was no Supreme Court ruling that you could not secede, nor any such clause in the Constitution.

The FACT here is that the Supreme Court has been very much wrong in some of their decisions, proven by the fact that the SCOTUS has reversed decisions. So your snitty insistence that seceding makes one a traitor is not supported by anything better than pique.

---

They weren't tried for treason because they were amnestied. You're not paying attention. I've already said that.

---

Johnson and the Union leadership gave out an general amnesty because they were afraid of putting anyone of the former Confederates on trial.

[John Clifford bluntly informed the new attorney general that the trial of Jefferson Davis would likely vindicate the cause of secession in a court of law. "I can see no reasonable probability of any other result of such a trial, than the re-opening of a question which has already been solemnly determined by the highest tribunal to which it can ever be submitted, with almost certain impunity to the prisoner, and the consequent humiliation of the Government and the country." (William Evarts and John Clifford to Henry Stanbery, August 14, 1866, Jefferson Davis Case, NA-CP)]

They desperately wanted to avoid litigating the matter

[The government appointed three separate attorneys to take on the case against Jefferson Davis, but all three eventually declined when they decided the case was "doomed to failure".

President Johnson was prepared to offer Davis a pardon in order to avoid embarrassment. Davis refused a pardon on the grounds that, to accept a pardon was to admit guilt. Davis wanted a trial to settle the issue of secession, once and for all, in a court of law. President Johnson chose to give amnesty to the entire South, Davis included, thereby shelving the issue]

Before the war ended, Pres. Lincoln issued his Proclamation of Amnesty & Reconstruction outlining a generous and lenient process for the southern states to be restored to full equal participation in American society.

https://www.freedmen.umd.edu/procamn.htm

more of a sea, isn't it???

Sea of Sweet Sweet Donny!

- el KKM

historian said:

---

Before the war ended, Pres. Lincoln issued his Proclamation of Amnesty & Reconstruction outlining a generous and lenient process for the southern states to be restored to full equal participation in American society.

https://www.freedmen.umd.edu/procamn.htm

---

Yes Lincoln also was afraid of any trials for "treason" or on the issue of secession.

He knew he was on weak Constitutional ground

[In November, 1860, Lincoln asked Attorney General Jeremiah S. Black about the Constitutional power the president had to confront secession. On November 20, 1860, Attorney General Black reported to Lincoln that the federal government had unquestioned power to confront with arms any entity that challenged it with force. At the same time, Black maintained that the federal government could not occupy a state against its will. In sum, he argued that the federal government could not use the military to prevent secession. And no Federal law gave permission. ~ Nov. 20, 1860, JB Papers]

["Only a despotic and imperial government can coerce seceding States."~ William Seward, US Secretary of State under Abraham Lincoln, to Charles Francis Adams, Minister to England, 10 April 1861]

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

Read through the thread. You lost this argument days ago, but I guess pride and spite are keeping you at it anyway.

No. The facts are still the facts. Accurately quoting the constitution and using logic is not "losing the argument".

LOL

Wangchung said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oh right, you claimed to be a partner in "the most profitable brewery in town."

---

can't seem to find where I said I owed and restaurant. Please point it out. I said I know a lot about them and have friends who own them. I said I'm aware of the most profitable bar and grill in town that is the most profitable. I live next door to it and am friends with the owner. It is public knowledge based upon TABC alcohol sales. Yup have an interest in a brewery, not a restaurant . Never said anything about "hot" you moron. You are pathetic

---

Those pictures speak for themselves, JaggoffRtard. I don't need your money, just donate it to Sicem NIL and we will call it even. Or do what your reputation indicated and back out of your bet now.

---

you need some reading comprehension, ,there wanker. Read closely. You said that I said I owned some kick ass restaurant in town". now, read closely. Never said anything whatsoever about owning a restaurant. I said I have interest in a local brewery, not a restaurant that is the most profitable in town. I stand by that. Send me your $. Needs to be a cashiers check from the likes of you wanker.

---

Oh right, you just said you own interest in the most profitable brewery in Dallas that also has a kitchen staff and serves food. But it's not a restaurant. Somehow. lol, the point was proven, you will not hesitate say whatever you think gives your opinion credibility at the time. You might have Kai fooled, but not anyone else. The people I know and are related to that own their own jets and rub elbows with billionaires don't post on Sicem, or any such sites. They also don't act like they have the world's smallest ***** when someone disagrees with them. Good job fooling Kai, though.

---

Beer business is tough. Even a successful brewery is likely not making tons of money. Nobody with an interest in a single brewery has their own jet.

historian said:

---

No. The facts are still the facts. Accurately quoting the constitution and using logic is not "losing the argument".

LOL

---

Keep telling yourself that, maybe you will convince ... yourself.

Midnight Rider said:

---

What in the hell is Trump trying to accomplish by renaming the Gulf of Mexico? Is this somehow going to help all Americans and make America great again? Or is this some sort of virtue signaling to his base?

Help me out here.

---

Still waiting ... do you oppose changing the names of places and institutions as a virtue signal?

Oldbear83 said:

---

historian said:

---

No. The facts are still the facts. Accurately quoting the constitution and using logic is not "losing the argument".

LOL

---

Keep telling yourself that, maybe you will convince ... yourself.

---

Keeping telling yourself that all you like. You might convince yourself

historian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

historian said:

---

No. The facts are still the facts. Accurately quoting the constitution and using logic is not "losing the argument".

LOL

---

Keep telling yourself that, maybe you will convince ... yourself.

---

Keeping telling yourself that all you like. You might convince yourself

---

You can't even come up with your own lines now!

I don't need to. You've already done it. You just cannot look in the mirror enough to realize where it applies.

historian said:

---

I don't need to. You've already done it. You just cannot look in the mirror enough to realize where it applies.

---

You've gone barmy, you know.

Sad, that.

Midnight Rider said:

---

What in the hell is Trump trying to accomplish by renaming the Gulf of Mexico? Is this somehow going to help all Americans and make America great again? Or is this some sort of virtue signaling to his base?

Help me out here.

---

Still waiting ... do you oppose changing the names of places and institutions as a virtue signal?