Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry for thread drift but yeah Memphis, what about that little ol 1869 Supreme Court decision. Instead you quote some non binding opinion of one judge. The SCOTUS ruled in 1869 that Texas had no legal right to secession. They didn't try the traitors cause they wanted to try and heal the nation. I've would have hung them starting with Lee. He is just as responsible for the slaughter as Jeff Davis.
Sorry for thread drift but yeah Memphis, what about that little ol 1869 Supreme Court decision. Instead you quote some non binding opinion of one judge. The SCOTUS ruled in 1869 that Texas had no legal right to secession. They didn't try the traitors cause they wanted to try and heal the nation. I've would have hung them starting with Lee. He is just as responsible for the slaughter as Jeff Davis.
And I hang the deaths of almost 1 million Americans around the neck of Lincoln. He failed to address the problem with diplomacy. One million Americans paid for his failure with their lives.
Sorry for thread drift but yeah Memphis, what about that little ol 1869 Supreme Court decision. Instead you quote some non binding opinion of one judge. The SCOTUS ruled in 1869 that Texas had no legal right to secession. They didn't try the traitors cause they wanted to try and heal the nation. I've would have hung them starting with Lee. He is just as responsible for the slaughter as Jeff Davis.
1869 was after the war, and after the 14th amendment. As I said previously, prior to the 14th amendment, secession was perfectly legal.
1869 was after the war, and after the 14th amendment. As I said previously, prior to the 14th amendment, secession was perfectly legal.
Do you just make stuff up? Prove it.
I'll give you this though, read this text of section III of the 14th:
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
This part of the amendment was meant to ban any former Confederate(like Lee), who had previously sworn an allegiance to the US, from running for any Fed office. Interesting isn't it that the 14th considered it "insurrection or rebellion", yet according to your twisted, revisionist bunk, it was perfectly legal before this amendment. Then why would the amendment include such language? I seriously wonder what kind of claptrap is taught in southern public schools about the Civil War.
I've been rolling over in my mind the concept that claims the existence of the right of states to secede from the United States, based upon the 10th amendment...it occurs to me that disproving this concept is equal to proving a negative; basically, it boils down to stating that any state power that can be imagined and is not explicitly prohibited by the Constitution must therefore be allowable - prove that it's not!
So if I can't prove a negative...maybe I can prove a positive counter-argument that refutes the original argument...and I think that I've found it...and it relies on the Constitution as it stood immediately after the adoption of the Bill of Rights.
I keep turning this counter-argument over in my mind looking for any flaws...if I don't find any flaws then I'll post it to the Great Debates forum...and let everyone have a whack at it. That would be better than muddying this post further with off-topic discussions.
As an aside, it occurred to me while considering the 10th Amendment position that the amendment reserves the non-federal powers to the states or the people...so that would mean that since the Constitution doesn't mention gay marriage then it must be, by the 10th Amendment, a power reserved to the people and therefore legal.
S They didn't try the traitors cause they wanted to try and heal the nation. I've would have hung them starting with Lee. He is just as responsible for the slaughter as Jeff Davis.
So, I guess you would have hung Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Revere, etc. too.
The blood of a million innocent American heroes lies on the head of Abe Lincoln. He failed miserable and a Million people lost their lives.
There's a subtle difference between revolution and secession that apparently has eluded you.
Now you are really funny. So you are saying if the South had initiated a REVOLUTION instead of peacefully leaving the Union you would call them heroes?
Your logic is certainly creative.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
