Author Topic: The battle of Charlottesville: A continuing discussion thread about the War between the States  (Read 19369 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cripplecreek

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,749
  • Constitutional Extremist
Funny thing is, had you waited a century or so, independence would have been freely granted anyways and there'd have been no civil war to endlessly rehash - since the Empire was a significant contributory factor to the whole mess.  :tongue2:

Its pretty complicated.

The British soldier who became the Canadian version of George Washington (John Graves Simcoe) was a staunch abolitionist and would have been a very unlikely ally to the south in the civil war.

@CatherineofAragon

Nothing should make a man happier than knowing his government couldn't care less about him.
I'd rather lose defending the constitution than win at its expense.
Hitlers are born and die every day without notice. Its the morons who put them in power that are dangerous.
You don't escape guilt by declaring that you have no choice.
Lese-majeste is my middle name

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 19,767

If you look at it the whole idea of any state thinking themselves to be sovereign is ridiculous.
Quite the contrary. Every State was sovereign, every state had a Governor, Secretary of State, Legislature, Constitution, it's unique laws, and was set up as a country--because it was. The word "State" meant "Country"--not the diminished political rubber stamp of today for Federal Programs. Every one of those States had issued some form of currency, although we refer to it as "Colonial Currency".

My ancestors swore an oath of loyalty to the Sovereign State of Maryland after the Revolutionary war. Such oaths were not uncommon in other States either.

Those States had been mentioned in the Articles of Confederation, too:
Quote
Article II.

Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression
And I looked, and rose up, and said unto the nobles, and to the rulers, and to the rest of the people, Be not ye afraid of them: remember the Lord, which is great and terrible, and fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses. Nehemiah 4:14 (KJV)

About the only "Big" Liberals don't revile is "Big Government"

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 28,282
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
If you want to interpret the tenth amendment as a license for states to secede, I can't stop you. But it's ridiculous.
Do really think the fed. gov. would grant territories, the other 37 states, statehood if they knew that any time those new states could legally secede?  They would never have done so.
Why do you think the FFs ditched the Articles of Confederation for the union? If they had thought individual states were "sovereign" and had the right to secede whenever, they would have EXPLICITLY!! put it in the constitution.
If you look at it the whole idea of any state thinking themselves to be sovereign is ridiculous. If some other resident of my state, Wisconsin, went around babbling about being a "sovereign" country, he'd be treated as a lunatic.
I'm proud to be from Wisconsin, but I  think of myself as an American and not some citizen of a sovereign midwestern state.
No amount of nuts (and we have our share) in my state wanting secession would somehow justify secession.
You're trying to do that typical backwards justification for secession through a tortured interpretation of the tenth amendment. 
As to the issue of citizens being justified in rebelling against tyranny, tell me how the South was being tyrannized. The tariff issue had been discussed, but that certainly wasn't the reason why the Southern states rebelled as the Ordinances of Secession plainly stated.

Do you think that the Constitution would have been ratified had not those who ratified it known for sure that they could leave the union when it no longer served  their purposes? 

The Constitution is written in plain English for all to read!

Here is the text of the 9th amendment to the US Constitution:   
Quote
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And here is the text of the 10th:
Quote
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.

Those two amendment make it abundantly clear to me that YOU have no leg to stand on in this argument!


« Last Edit: August 15, 2017, 02:27:02 PM by Bigun »

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 28,282
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Quite the contrary. Every State was sovereign, every state had a Governor, Secretary of State, Legislature, Constitution, it's unique laws, and was set up as a country--because it was. The word "State" meant "Country"--not the diminished political rubber stamp of today for Federal Programs. Every one of those States had issued some form of currency, although we refer to it as "Colonial Currency".

My ancestors swore an oath of loyalty to the Sovereign State of Maryland after the Revolutionary war. Such oaths were not uncommon in other States either.

Those States had been mentioned in the Articles of Confederation, too:

Thank you!  Saved me the trouble of responding further to that sophistry although I have PLENTY of ammunition remaining!

Online INVAR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,290
  • Dread To Tread
    • Sword At The Ready
No sir!  The Declaration of Independence did not "establish" anything!  It points out and expounds on the FACT that the immutable rights of man always been in existence prior to any man made government on this Earth!

It established the cause in writing for the Separation from authoritarian government which they determined had become a tyranny that a free people are not obligated to be obedient towards.

They cited the immutable source of Rights that were trampled which they asserted gave them the right and duty to abolish their allegiance to the Crown and create new guards for themselves.

That was our establishing document for liberty.   

To deny that it is, grants government the power to act as a tyranny with impunity without regard to the rights they "legally" trample.

In short, we have a moral justification to resist the tyranny of government and abolish it when it becomes destructive to the rights cited in the Establishing Document as Cause for separation.
Fart for freedom, fart for liberty and fart proudly.  - Benjamin Franklin

...Obsta principiis—Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers and destroyers press upon them so fast that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon [the] American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour." - John Adams, February 6, 1775

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 28,282
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
It established the cause in writing for the Separation from authoritarian government which they determined had become a tyranny that a free people are not obligated to be obedient towards.

They cited the immutable source of Rights that were trampled which they asserted gave them the right and duty to abolish their allegiance to the Crown and create new guards for themselves.

That was our establishing document for liberty.   

To deny that it is, grants government the power to act as a tyranny with impunity without regard to the rights they "legally" trample.

In short, we have a moral justification to resist the tyranny of government and abolish it when it becomes destructive to the rights cited in the Establishing Document as Cause for separation.

Yes indeed!  It is a DECLARATON of causes which notes the God given rights that underpinned the action being taken. 

Offline bigheadfred

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 8,766
  • Personal text
Funny thing is, had you waited a century or so, independence would have been freely granted anyways and there'd have been no civil war to endlessly rehash - since the Empire was a significant contributory factor to the whole mess.  :tongue2:

Here is my take.

Without the American Revolution and the Constitution and the implementaion thereof there would not have been the great rise in civilization we see today.

Those inalienable rights gave the power to the individual to make The United States into the great country it is today. The integration, assimilation, of many cultures and people using those rights brought the entire world to new heights. Or at least dragged them along.

The War of Secession was a necessary test. IMO.

Now this thing in Charlottesville is another test. 62 odd, and I mean odd, million people voted for tyranny last election. The people who were there in Virginia to legally stage a protest were attacked, illegally IMO. Aided and abetted by the powers that be.

People want to scream and yell that the KKK, Supremacists, Nazis were there and needed to be defeated isn't what that was about. That isn't the issue to me.

What I care about is that the people who were legally going about exercising those inalienable rights were denied that. That is the issue, IMO.

That is what I object to.

I would submit that, without the Revolution, the Constitution, and EVERYTHING that came after, and had America remained under the British Crown, the ENTIRE planet would be a third world shit hole today. Or worse.

@Smokin Joe

I think they moved this topic into this category and killed it?

« Last Edit: August 15, 2017, 08:35:52 PM by bigheadfred »

Offline CatherineofAragon

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 13,109
Its pretty complicated.

The British soldier who became the Canadian version of George Washington (John Graves Simcoe) was a staunch abolitionist and would have been a very unlikely ally to the south in the civil war.

@CatherineofAragon

@Cripplecreek

That's right, he wouldn't.  He abolished slavery in Upper Canada.




Speaking of, I thought TURN ended on a great note, though I hate to see it go.  I used up about a quarter of a box of tissues last week, when Simcoe called his men to his sickbed and said that Washington was an honorable man, and a good part of the rest on Sunday.  A fellow fan texted me and said, "I'm drinking and bawling.  You?"  "Same", I sent back.

Oh, well, I'll be watching those DVDs.




"We are all sinners, and, if given the indulgence, will dress as poorly as we can.” ——-Christian Chensvold

Offline mrclose

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,851
And the worst part is, they're too stupid or cowardly to admit that Trump feels the same about the confederate battle flag and monuments as Barrack Obama or Nancy Pelosi.
Quit jawing and give us a link!
« Last Edit: August 19, 2017, 10:36:02 AM by MOD3 »
"When you are dead, you don't know that you are dead.
It is difficult only for the others.

It is the same when you are stupid."

~ Anonymous

Offline Hoodat

  • R 8:37
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,723
Quit jawing and give us a link!

@mrclose



Donald Trump tees off on the Confederate flag

By Jacqueline Alemany CBS News June 23, 2015, 9:21 PM


Newly-minted presidential candidate Donald Trump joined his fellow Republican contenders Tuesday in calling for the South Carolina legislature to remove the Confederate flag from the statehouse grounds.

"I think they should put it in the museum and let it go," Trump said of the flag during an appearance at his new golf course in the Washington, D.C. suburbs. "Respect whatever it is you have to respect, because it was a point in time, and put it in a museum. But I would take it down. Yes."

Always the showman, Trump made his pronouncement from a podium perched atop a noisy man-made waterfall at the Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Virginia, one of the latest additions to his far-reaching real estate empire. Trump filed paperwork to become a White House candidate this week, finally making his decades-long flirtation with a presidential run official.


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-tees-off-on-the-confederate-flag/
« Last Edit: August 19, 2017, 10:36:19 AM by MOD3 »
Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us.

Offline Cripplecreek

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,749
  • Constitutional Extremist
« Last Edit: August 19, 2017, 10:36:39 AM by MOD3 »

Nothing should make a man happier than knowing his government couldn't care less about him.
I'd rather lose defending the constitution than win at its expense.
Hitlers are born and die every day without notice. Its the morons who put them in power that are dangerous.
You don't escape guilt by declaring that you have no choice.
Lese-majeste is my middle name

Offline goatprairie

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,161
Quite the contrary. Every State was sovereign, every state had a Governor, Secretary of State, Legislature, Constitution, it's unique laws, and was set up as a country--because it was. The word "State" meant "Country"--not the diminished political rubber stamp of today for Federal Programs. Every one of those States had issued some form of currency, although we refer to it as "Colonial Currency".

My ancestors swore an oath of loyalty to the Sovereign State of Maryland after the Revolutionary war. Such oaths were not uncommon in other States either.

Those States had been mentioned in the Articles of Confederation, too:
If every state was a sovereign country, why did the U.S. congress reject the Articles of Confederation for the present constitution that gives the fed. gov. power over the states?
All the tenth amendment says regarding the matter is that all powers/laws not specifically delegated/enumerated as federal laws belong to the states.
Why isn't there something in the constitution about states being sovereign countries that are free to secede any time they feel like it? Because the states weren't sovereign, that's why. States serve as an effective vehicle of federalism. They are a means to prevent sole control of everything by an all-powerful fed. gov.
States are parts of the union.  That's all they are.
I'll ask you again...why would the U.S. gov. make an ex territory a sovereign country? They wouldn't.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2017, 12:31:07 PM by goatprairie »

Offline goatprairie

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,161
It established the cause in writing for the Separation from authoritarian government which they determined had become a tyranny that a free people are not obligated to be obedient towards.

They cited the immutable source of Rights that were trampled which they asserted gave them the right and duty to abolish their allegiance to the Crown and create new guards for themselves.

That was our establishing document for liberty.   

To deny that it is, grants government the power to act as a tyranny with impunity without regard to the rights they "legally" trample.

In short, we have a moral justification to resist the tyranny of government and abolish it when it becomes destructive to the rights cited in the Establishing Document as Cause for separation.
Sure, resisting tyranny is a right.  However, secession is not a right. Even Washington said the union is indissoluble. Look it up.

Offline Hoodat

  • R 8:37
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,723
If every state was a sovereign country, why did the U.S. congress reject the Articles of Confederation for the present constitution that gives the fed. gov. power over the states?

Better question, why were states allowed to unilaterally secede from the Articles of Confederation?

As for "the present Constitution that gives the fed. gov. power over the states", I am still looking for the part that gives the Federal government the power to go to war with any State that doesn't want to be part of that union any more.


All the tenth amendment says regarding the matter is that all powers/laws not specifically delegated/enumerated as federal laws belong to the states.

One such power not specifically delegated would be the power to permanently opt out.


Why isn't there something in the constitution about states being sovereign countries that are free to secede any time they feel like it.

Why isn't there something in the Constitution outlawing murder?  Or why isn't there something in the Constitution granting you the right to free speech?  Or why isn't there something prohibiting a state from legalizing polygamy?  Or abortion?  Or taxing newspapers?


States are parts of the union.  That's all they are.

Until they choose not to be.
Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us.

Offline InHeavenThereIsNoBeer

  • TBR Advisory Committee
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,214
Sure, resisting tyranny is a right.  However, secession is not a right. Even Washington said the union is indissoluble. Look it up.

Washington's long since dead, his opinion on the matter is irrelevant.

The union continues to exist because we, the living adults of the time, CHOOSE it as our form of government.

The founders had the right to choose their own form of government, but they had no right to expect their choice to enslave those who were yet to be born (I think Jefferson had a comment on this, BTW).  We have the same rights, as will those that live here a couple hundred years after we are gone.

Offline goatprairie

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,161
Washington's long since dead, his opinion on the matter is irrelevant.

The union continues to exist because we, the living adults of the time, CHOOSE it as our form of government.

The founders had the right to choose their own form of government, but they had no right to expect their choice to enslave those who were yet to be born (I think Jefferson had a comment on this, BTW).  We have the same rights, as will those that live here a couple hundred years after we are gone.
Nice words, but irrelevant.  Means nothing in the context of what the constitution states. Show me the words or clause in the constitution EXPLICITLY permitting secession.

Online INVAR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,290
  • Dread To Tread
    • Sword At The Ready
Sure, resisting tyranny is a right.  However, secession is not a right. Even Washington said the union is indissoluble. Look it up.

"All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security".

The Foundational Document that established our right and duty to secede from the Crown says that we have a right and a duty to THROW OFF such government.  The Foundational document trumps your misapplication of Washington's statement that the union at the time of his statement, was indissoluble.

Would you prefer bloodshed or parting of the ways by saying - "We're done and out of here with this covenant partnership YOU statists have broken"???  When a government sends troops to subjugate the will of the people by forcing them back into an abusive marriage they no longer want to be a part of, that is tyranny - plain and simple.

All you are doing is insisting that the abused has no right to leave that marriage, even when they are raped and beaten every single day by a partner who hates them and only sees them to be exploited for self.

It is better to fight and die throwing off such government, than to live as slaves while lying to ourselves that we are free.

Fart for freedom, fart for liberty and fart proudly.  - Benjamin Franklin

...Obsta principiis—Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers and destroyers press upon them so fast that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon [the] American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour." - John Adams, February 6, 1775

Online INVAR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,290
  • Dread To Tread
    • Sword At The Ready
Nice words, but irrelevant.  Means nothing in the context of what the constitution states. Show me the words or clause in the constitution EXPLICITLY permitting secession.

Where was the written permissions from Parliament and King permitting our secession from the the Authority of the Crown?
Fart for freedom, fart for liberty and fart proudly.  - Benjamin Franklin

...Obsta principiis—Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers and destroyers press upon them so fast that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon [the] American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour." - John Adams, February 6, 1775

Offline goatprairie

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,161
Better question, why were states allowed to unilaterally secede from the Articles of Confederation?

As for "the present Constitution that gives the fed. gov. power over the states", I am still looking for the part that gives the Federal government the power to go to war with any State that doesn't want to be part of that union any more.


One such power not specifically delegated would be the power to permanently opt out.


Why isn't there something in the Constitution outlawing murder?  Or why isn't there something in the Constitution granting you the right to free speech?  Or why isn't there something prohibiting a state from legalizing polygamy?  Or abortion?  Or taxing newspapers?


Until they choose not to be.
All the quotes I can find from the notable people at the time, like Washington, considered the union indissoluble. They considered it a compact requiring assent of all the members for individual states acting unilaterally/seceding.
A union, which is what the U.S.A. is, would hardly be a union if states could leave any time they felt like it.  We wouldn't have a country, we'd have chaos.

Offline bigheadfred

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 8,766
  • Personal text
We the people.

If the majority of the citizens of the United States residing in a given state decide to secede they can try. But if the majority of the citizens of the United States  residing in the remaining states decide they cannot then they are overruled by the majority. So all you have to do at that point is convince the majority of the seceding state to stay. By debate or by the sword.

The Constitution is a document of secession.

Yes or no.

Online IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,269
  • Sept 11 2001 or March 6 1836

States are parts of the union.  That's all they are.

You have some serious history deficiencies, friend, if you think that is all a state is.

One of our greatest attributes as a nation is the right of any US citizen to move from one state to another.  If one state decides to tax the hell out of its citizens or allow open carry of firearms or openly embrace illegals with welfare, then a citizen of that state can pack up and move to find better environs.

Once the federal govt controls all tax revenues, police, regulations, that option is gone and we are doomed as a free country.

Some people just do not accept that this country was founded by a collection of sovereign states that decided to combine forces for specific purposes, not all purposes.  These purposes are few such as defense, international relations and resolution of disputes between states and are all enumerated in the document called the Constitution.
Yearning to stay free takes place in many ways at many different times, whether by withstanding planes or bayonets

Online INVAR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,290
  • Dread To Tread
    • Sword At The Ready
All the quotes I can find from the notable people at the time, like Washington, considered the union indissoluble. They considered it a compact requiring assent of all the members for individual states acting unilaterally/seceding.

The compact is broken.  Worse now than it was back in the 1800s.

The state legislatures, the consent of the governed, voted to leave the union back then.  They were forced back at gunpoint.  That is no longer a union - it is servitude to a master.  It is sanctioned slavery.  It is no different than forcing an abused and beaten wife back into the bed of her tyrannical husband so she can be abused legally and without recourse.

Eventually such governing creatures make themselves into gods that determine life and death itself.  And so we have become as a nation under a beast.

A union, which is what the U.S.A. is, would hardly be a union if states could leave any time they felt like it.  We wouldn't have a country, we'd have chaos.

We already have chaos under this union, fostered by this union, promoted by this union and trampling the inalienable rights of those whom are now targets of political punishment and subjugation.  It has arbitrarily made itself god, and is working to affront the Most High himself and those who are obedient to Him.  It makes law by decree and via corruption using threat to force itself on the populace under pain of penalty.  Therefore, it has abrogated any moral authority it had and this union no longer serves liberty - but undermines it while making itself the sovereign.

You're justifying Statism.  The States have an inherent right to leave the union when it becomes clear to their people that the Federal Beast, having administered a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing the goal of absolute despotism and requiring fealty to the Federal Government. The right to leave a broken covenant is our right and our duty, as it is to throw off such government, and establish new guards for their security.   The soap box and ballot box are corrupted beyond redemption and liberty no longer has any voice outside of lip service.  Everything now revolves around the state and what the state must provide and what the state must do to restrict those targeted for plunder and punishment.

I do not care what you wish to cite from the Constitution.  Nothing in there applies to the people, rather it applies only to the Federal Government.   And since the Federal beast no longer abides within it's constraints and ignores it when it serves their agenda while abolishing clear enumerated rights in favor of rights they have invented sans enumeration - The federal government is lawless and has removed itself from any moral authority.  All it now has is agents that will put guns to your head to force compliance with whatever it dictates.

It is 1775 and 1861 all over again.

But this time, the vast majority of the population WANTS the Crown to become more oppressive and all-encompassing under a new banner and flag of Communism and Statism.

To remain a "union" all states will be required to become part of that new paradigm.

Which is occurring right now as I type.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2017, 01:54:29 PM by INVAR »
Fart for freedom, fart for liberty and fart proudly.  - Benjamin Franklin

...Obsta principiis—Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers and destroyers press upon them so fast that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon [the] American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour." - John Adams, February 6, 1775

Online edpc

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,106
  • Professional Misanthrope
The compact is broken.  Worse now than it was back in the 1800s.

The state legislatures, the consent of the governed, voted to leave the union back then.  They were forced back at gunpoint.  That is no longer a union - it is servitude to a master.  It is sanctioned slavery.  It is no different than forcing an abused and beaten wife back into the bed of her tyrannical husband so she can be abused legally and without recourse.

Eventually such governing creatures make themselves into gods that determine life and death itself.  And so we have become as a nation under a beast.

We already have chaos under this union, fostered by this union, promoted by this union and trampling the inalienable rights of those whom are now targets of political punishment and subjugation.  It has arbitrarily made itself god, and is working to affront the Most High himself and those who are obedient to Him.  It makes law by decree and via corruption using threat to force itself on the populace under pain of penalty.  Therefore, it has abrogated any moral authority it had and this union no longer serves liberty - but undermines it while making itself the sovereign.

You're justifying Statism.  The States have an inherent right to leave the union when it becomes clear to their people that the Federal Beast, having administered a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing the goal of absolute despotism and requiring fealty to the Federal Government. The right to leave a broken covenant is our right and our duty, as it is to throw off such government, and establish new guards for their security.   The soap box and ballot box are corrupted beyond redemption and liberty no longer has any voice outside of lip service.  Everything now revolves around the state and what the state must provide and what the state must do to restrict those targeted for plunder and punishment.

I do not care what you wish to cite from the Constitution.  Nothing in there applies to the people, rather it applies only to the Federal Government.   And since the Federal beast no longer abides within it's constraints and ignores it when it serves their agenda while abolishing clear enumerated rights in favor of rights they have invented sans enumeration - The federal government is lawless and has removed itself from any moral authority.  All it now has is agents that will put guns to your head to force compliance with whatever it dictates.

It is 1775 and 1861 all over again.

But this time, the vast majority of the population WANTS the Crown to become more oppressive and all-encompassing under a new banner and flag of Communism and Statism.

To remain a "union" all states will be required to become part of that new paradigm.

Which is occurring right now as I type.

The parts I put in bold are ones I agree with in particular.  Unfortunately, it would seem people are comfortable with federal authoritarianism, as long as the 'right people' are in control of it.  There is really no such thing as the right form of tyranny.

The only area where we may differ on resolution is the method. I believe the only real legal manner is through an Article 5 Convention of States, not unilateral withdrawal.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2017, 02:19:01 PM by edpc »
I disagree.  Circle gets the square.

Offline InHeavenThereIsNoBeer

  • TBR Advisory Committee
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,214
Nice words, but irrelevant.  Means nothing in the context of what the constitution states. Show me the words or clause in the constitution EXPLICITLY permitting secession.

It doesn't need them.  It is a voluntary compact.  Once people decide they no longer wish to be bound by it, its words are meaningless.

Also, it was written and ratified by people long since dead, who had no right to determine how we would live today, any more than I have the right to subject my 6xgreat-granddaughter to an arranged marriage.

Offline Hoodat

  • R 8:37
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,723
Show me the words or clause in the constitution EXPLICITLY permitting secession.

Show me the words or clause in the Constitution EXPLICITLY permitting free speech.
Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf