Meanwhile in Alabama

[GunsOfFrankEaton]

Sure, Lincoln fought to preserved the Union. And who was he fighting against? Against men who were leading an insurrection to destroy that union so they could protect the institution of human slavery!

btw, I know Lincoln wasn't perfect. He was a politician of his time. So I don't need to all the "lost cause" material on Lincoln. I've read it and I am familiar with it (I've lived in the south most of my life). We are talking about the Confederacy here though, not Lincoln.

Shifting gears for a moment, just cause I'm curious about something, do you support those who kneel during the national anthem Guns? Or does that peaceful protest anger you?

The Constitution created the federal government. But that does nothing to support any argument you've made. The States wrote and ratified the Constitution as a legal document that gave the federal government specific powers. And it also distintly states that any power not specifically granted to the federal government was reserved for the States. The Constitution created a ""more perfect Union," but there was no intent by the Framers or ratifiers that it was a consolidating document. The 10th Amendment makes that clear.

Did the federal government have time traveling capabilities in 1860? Texas vs White (the link you provided) was argued in 1969, nearly 9 years after the first State seceded in 1860. Unless time travel existed, you proved my point of...

There was nothing, nada, zilch in the Constitution or in any penal code that prohibited secession by a state. Since you claim to be a lawyer or work in law, I'm going to assume you are familiar with nulla poena sine lege. How could anyone, state or individual, be punished by the federal government for a law that did not exist? Based on that basic principle, one could easily argue that Fort Sumter was legally self defense, an opposition to a tyrannical federal government.

Precisely.
Edwin Stanton, Lincoln's Secretary of War and one of the most brilliant legal minds in the country at the time, was concerned that under the Tenth Amendment secession might be found constitutional and legal -- one of the reasons the federal government decided against prosecuting the likes of Lee and Davis.

http://www.law.virginia.edu/news/201710/was-secession-legal

 

[my_2cents]

Precisely.
Edwin Stanton, Lincoln's Secretary of War and one of the most brilliant legal minds in the country at the time, was concerned that under the Tenth Amendment secession might be found constitutional and legal -- one of the reasons the federal government decided against prosecuting the likes of Lee and Davis.

http://www.law.virginia.edu/news/201710/was-secession-legal

Concerned doesn't mean his concern was correct. Again, I'd reference you to the case I gave to medic.

btw, still wondering about this since you have yet to answer it: Do you support those who kneel during the national anthem? Or does that peaceful protest anger you?

 

[my_2cents]

The Constitution created the federal government.

Exactly. The government that Confederate leaders led an armed insurrection against to protect the institution of slavery.

The 10th Amendment makes that clear.

lol, no it doesn't. Doesn't make it that clear at all and it never has.

Did the federal government have time traveling capabilities in 1860? Texas vs White (the link you provided) was argued in 1969, nearly 9 years after the first State seceded in 1860. Unless time travel existed, you proved my point of...

Did you even read the case?

There was nothing, nada, zilch in the Constitution or in any penal code that prohibited secession by a state.

Based on that basic principle, one could easily argue that Fort Sumter was legally self defense, an opposition to a tyrannical federal government.

So then, it is your position, that the Confederacy did not engage in an insurrection? The Confederacy was not the aggressor? A simple yes or no will suffice?

 

[GunsOfFrankEaton]

Concerned doesn't mean his concern was correct. Again, I'd reference you to the case I gave to medic.

btw, still wondering about this since you have yet to answer it: Do you support those who kneel during the national anthem? Or does that peaceful protest anger you?

Exactly. The government that Confederate leaders led an armed insurrection against to protect the institution of slavery.



lol, no it doesn't. Doesn't make it that clear at all and it never has.



Did you even read the case?





So then, it is your position, that the Confederacy did not engage in an insurrection but legal self-defense? The Confederacy was not the aggressor? A simple yes or no will suffice?

Exactly. The government that Confederate leaders led an armed insurrection against to protect the institution of slavery.



lol, no it doesn't. Doesn't make it that clear at all and it never has.



Did you even read the case?





So then, it is your position, that the Confederacy did not engage in an insurrection but legal self-defense? The Confederacy was not the aggressor? A simple yes or no will suffice?

The vast, vast majority of the battles fought in the Civil War took place in the South. The North was clearly the military aggressor.

 

[my_2cents]

The North was clearly the military aggressor.

No, the "United States" was not the military aggressor. The Confederacy started the insurrection. the Confederacy took federal property, bombed a federal fort, etc. All to protect the institution of slavery. And apparently, you feel the need to defend them almost 160 years later.

btw, still waiting on an answer to these questions: Do you support those who kneel during the national anthem? Or does that peaceful protest anger you?

 

[GunsOfFrankEaton]

No, the "United States" was not the military aggressor. The Confederacy started the insurrection. the Confederacy took federal property, bombed a federal fort, etc. All to protect the institution of slavery. And apparently, you feel the need to defend them almost 160 years later.

btw, still waiting on an answer to these questions: Do you support those who kneel during the national anthem? Or does that peaceful protest anger you?

That is the stupidest question I've ever seen posted on this board. You should know that this is a board comprised of many libertarian-minded people including myself. Do the math.

 

[my_2cents]

That is the stupidest question I've ever seen posted on this board. You do know that this is a board comprised of many libertarian-minded people including myself. Do the math.

Answer the questions, and stop dodging/deflecting.

Do you support those who kneel during the national anthem? Or does that peaceful protest anger you?

 

[GunsOfFrankEaton]

Answer the questions, and stop dodging/deflecting.

Do you support those who kneel during the national anthem? Or does that peaceful protest anger you?

It's hard to be angry with people when you are laughing at them.

 

[my_2cents]

It's hard to be angry with people when you are laughing at them.

haha, you are having a hard time with these two questions for some reason.

Again...

Do you support those who kneel during the national anthem? Or does that peaceful protest anger you?

 

[GunsOfFrankEaton]

haha, you are having a hard time with these two questions for some reason.

Again...

Do you support those who kneel during the national anthem? Or does that peaceful protest anger you?

Were you ever educated as to the core beliefs of Libertarians?

 

[my_2cents]

Were you ever educated as to the core beliefs of Libertarians?

I'm not asking you about libertarians (a diverse bunch for sure). I am simply asking you two questions that you keep dodging for some reason.

Again, do you support those who kneel during the national anthem? Or does that peaceful protest anger you?

 

[GunsOfFrankEaton]

I'm not asking you about libertarians (a diverse bunch for sure). I am simply asking you two questions that you keep dodging for some reason.

Again, do you support those who kneel during the national anthem? Or does that peaceful protest anger you?

I fully support the right of anyone to do or say whatever they please as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of another.

 

[GunsOfFrankEaton]

No, the "United States" was not the military aggressor. The Confederacy started the insurrection. the Confederacy took federal property, bombed a federal fort, etc. All to protect the institution of slavery. And apparently, you feel the need to defend them almost 160 years later.

btw, still waiting on an answer to these questions: Do you support those who kneel during the national anthem? Or does that peaceful protest anger you?

Tenth Amendment advocates might argue that when the Confederacy fired upon Fort Sumter, it was to clear out the federals then illegally occupying property of the newly-formed Confederate States of America.

 

[my_2cents]

I fully support the right of anyone to do or say whatever they please as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of another.

And so it doesn't anger or upset you, correct?

 

[my_2cents]

Tenth Amendment advocates might argue that when the Confederacy fired upon Fort Sumter, it was to clear out the federals then illegally occupying property of the newly-formed Confederate States of America.

haha, I love how you couch this lost cause argument behind the words "tenth amendment advocates."

Fort Sumter was part of the federal government fortification of southern harbors after the War of 1812. Construction began in 1829. The land Fort Sumter set upon was cessioned to the United States by the state of South Carolina in December 1836. It was federal government property. It at no time belonged to the rebellious and traitorous Confederate government.

Yet, still, the Confederacy decided to bomb it, thus engaging in military aggression.

 

[GunsOfFrankEaton]

.

And so it doesn't anger or upset you, correct?

Not at all. I encourage the free flow of ideas and self expression unencumbered by anyone, anything and especially by oppressive governments. Anger and rage is not in my portfolio. And I laugh at the left's emission of huge quantities of such.

 

[my_2cents]

Not at all

Thank you. Why did it take you so long to answer those simple questions?

Anger and rage is not in my portfolio. And I laugh at left's emission of huge quantities of such.

And the right's, correct?

 

[Medic007]

Did you even read the case?

The real question is have you?

How can a case from 1869 be applied to 1860 in 1860? If the case wasn't litigated until 1869, there was nothing to make secession illegal in 1860. And if there was nothing but Lincoln's opinion that secession was illegal in 1860, then secession was not illegal because the Executive branch cannot create or interpret the law. If you think a law existed, surely you can find a link to it. Post it.

 

[Medic007]

It at no time belonged to the rebellious and traitous Confederate government.

Once South Carolina seceded, Fort Sumter no longer belonged to the federal government.

 

[my_2cents]

The real question is have you?

How can a case from 1869 be applied to 1860 in 1860? If the case wasn't litigated until 1869, there was nothing to make secession illegal in 1860. And if there was nothing but Lincoln's opinion that secession was illegal in 1860, then secession was not illegal because the Executive branch cannot create or interpret the law.

Yes. And the fact that you keep focusing on the dates and not what I would be referencing in the case tends to indicate you haven't read it.

It is also interesting how you have gone off talking about legal and illegal, when I was discussing aggression.

 

[my_2cents]

Once South Carolina seceded, Fort Sumter no longer belonged to the federal government.

No, it still belonged to the federal government. South Carolina had ceded the site to the federal government in 1836. It gave up all right, title, and claim.

Just wondering, why do you feel the need to defend the Confederacy?

 

[Medic007]

Yes. And the fact that you keep focusing on the dates and not what I would be referencing in the case tends to indicate you haven't read it.

It is also interesting how you have gone off talking about legal and illegal, when I was discussing aggression.

Uhhhhhh, do you not understand that a Supreme Court decision in 1869 had zero significance to the events as they happened in 1860 and 1861? I know exactly what you're trying to "reference" in the case, but it did not exist in 1860 and 1861, or any single year before that. Again, how could secession be illegal when it wasn't illegal? If the date of Texas vs White had been prior to December 1860, then it would be applicable. If there was a law that prohibited secession at the time South Carolina seceded, cite it, link it, something it.

This is very, very basic shit. Your use of a Supreme Court case that didn't exist as your argument that secession was illegal is absolutely bizarre. Maybe you can answer this simple question. If a law was passed today or the Supreme Court made a decision today that grilling a hamburger is illegal, like full blown treasonous illegal, can you be prosecuted for the hamburger you grilled in 2010?

 

[Medic007]

No, it still belonged to the federal government. South Carolina had ceded the site to the federal government in 183

And South Carolina took it back when it seceded in 1860.

Just wondering, why do you feel the need to defend the Confederacy?

Huh? How am I defending the Confederacy? I'm simply discussing historical events.

 

[CowboyJD]

If a law was passed today or the Supreme Court made a decision today that grilling a hamburger is illegal, like full blown treasonous illegal, can you be prosecuted for the hamburger you grilled in 2010?

Ew!
Ew!
Mister Kotter!
Mister Kotter!
Over here, Mister Kotter!
I’d like to answer the question!

(You may not be old enough to understand this reference. )

 

[my_2cents]

I know exactly what you're trying to "reference" in the case, but it did not exist in 1860 and 1861, or any single year before that.

No you don't. You are focused on the date and won't look past that for some reason. You are also focused on legal/illegal while I was discussing aggression. So be it.

And South Carolina took it back when it seceded in 1860.

It was taken back by aggression. Which was my original point.

Now, I'd like to ask two questions since you posted that you are only discussing historical events. Do you believe that the Confederacy did not engage in an insurrection? Do you believe that the Confederacy was not the aggressor?

 

[Medic007]

No you don't. You are obsessed with the date and won't look past that for some reason. So be it.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[Medic007]

Ew!
Ew!
Mister Kotter!
Mister Kotter!
Over here, Mister Kotter!
I’d like to answer the question!

(You may not be old enough to understand this reference. )

Damn it, that made me laugh out loud. I'm not much younger than you, old man. It was one of my favorite shows.

 

[my_2cents]

Ew!
Ew!
Mister Kotter!
Mister Kotter!
Over here, Mister Kotter!
I’d like to answer the question!

(You may not be old enough to understand this reference. )

 

[Medic007]

Now, I'd like to ask two questions since you posted that you are only discussing historical events.

Nope. No more conversation with you until you answer this question.

If a law was passed today or the Supreme Court made a decision today that grilling a hamburger is illegal, like full blown treasonous illegal, can you be prosecuted for the hamburger you grilled in 2010?

 

[my_2cents]

Nope. No more conversation with you until you answer this question.

haha, what is this?

You know the answer to that question. Who doesn't? Again though, I am and was discussing insurrection and aggression. Think about it, you have gone to asking about ex post facto laws regarding grilling hamburgers when I was talking about the insurrection and aggression of the Confederacy. Talk about going off track lol.

Now, I'll ask again: Do you believe that the Confederacy did not engage in an insurrection? Do you believe that the Confederacy was not the aggressor?

 

[Medic007]

Voting to secede from the Union without the permission of the United States government is aggression.

Did the Constitution prohibit It?

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/74/700/

If a law was passed today or the Supreme Court made a decision today that grilling a hamburger is illegal, like full blown treasonous illegal, can you be prosecuted for the hamburger you grilled in 2010?

 

[my_2cents]

If you want to do a review, lets add what you left out...

Was it actually an insurrection on the part of the South?

Yes.

A vote is aggression? So every time congress votes on something we don't agree with, it's considered an act of aggression? Should we be proactive and invade California for discussing secession?

Voting to secede from the Union without the permission of the United States government is aggression. Especially when it is followed up with taking over the United States' forts and other property. And bombing a United States' fort.

Has California voted for secession without the permission of the US government? Has it created another government? Has it proceeded to take over United States property and bomb United States military posts?

Voting to secede was aggression? Was it illegal to secede from the Union? Did the Constitution prohibit It?

What [did] the Constitution create?

Also, I'd recommend...

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/74/700/

The Constitution created the federal government. But that does nothing to support any argument you've made.

Exactly. The government that Confederate leaders led an armed insurrection against to protect the institution of slavery.

The Constitution created a ""more perfect Union," but there was no intent by the Framers or ratifiers that it was a consolidating document. The 10th Amendment makes that clear.

lol, no it doesn't. Doesn't make it that clear at all and it never has.

And then I asked, which you have avoided ever since:

So then, it is your position, that the Confederacy did not engage in an insurrection? The Confederacy was not the aggressor? A simple yes or no will suffice?

Because instead, you chose to go off the tracks and start asking about grilling hamburgers...

If a law was passed today or the Supreme Court made a decision today that grilling a hamburger is illegal, like full blown treasonous illegal, can you be prosecuted for the hamburger you grilled in 2010?

I first asked you about what your position on all of this was back at 7:59pm. You have yet to answer that and are instead focused on grilling hamburgers and ex post facto laws (and wanting an answer to that), something I have said nothing about.

Is this how you discuss on here Medic? Maybe @davidallen was right about you...

You waste your time with this one...

 

[Medic007]

Is this how you discuss on here Medic? Maybe @davidallen was right about you...

Ahhh, ad hominem. Usually the sign of desperation. Do you really need Dave to distract from the hole you've put yourself in? It isn't going to work, but feel free. It's obvious why you want a distraction.

It's interesting that you left all of the dialogue about dates out of your "summary," and instead chose to focus on sidebar conversation. It's even more interesting that you bolded a smartass question I asked you.
Anyhow, just so we're clear what led us to this point, in the order the dialogue was posted...

I posted:

A vote is aggression?

You responded:

Voting to secede from the Union without the permission of the United States government is aggression.

My response:

Voting to secede was aggression? Was it illegal to secede from the Union? Did the Constitution prohibit It?

Your response:

Again, I'll repeat what I posted above:

Voting to secede from the Union without the permission of the United States government is aggression.

What the Constitution create?

Also, I'd recommend...

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/74/700/

My response

The Constitution created the federal government...

Did the federal government have time traveling capabilities in 1860? Texas vs White (the link you provided) was argued in 1869, nearly 9 years after the first State seceded in 1860. Unless time travel existed, you proved my point of...

There was nothing, nada, zilch in the Constitution or in any penal code that prohibited secession by a state. Since you claim to be a lawyer or work in law, I'm going to assume you are familiar with nulla poena sine lege. How could anyone, state or individual, be punished by the federal government for a law that did not exist? Based on that basic principle, one could easily argue that Fort Sumter was legally self defense, an opposition to a tyrannical federal government.

Your response:

Did you even read the case?

The subsequent responses from me revolve around the date of Texas vs White (that you provided the link for), the dates the Confederate states seceded, and the fact that those two things have zero relationship. Your subsequent responses have revolved around posting that I'm focused on the dates and not whatever you are referencing in Texas vs White in 1869 that you seem to believe is pertinent to 1860 events. This last paragraph is obviously a summary so this post wouldn't be 1869 miles long.

Soooooo, back to the very beginning of this entertaining convo... You stated that secession required the permission of the federal government. Did the Constitution prohibit secession? Was there any other law in existence that prohibited secession? If the answer is no to both of those questions, we can continue the dialogue and maybe cover the shit you're desperate to move into. If the answer to either of those questions is yes, post the relevant legal stuff, the proof as they say, and we can go from there.

BTW, the burger grilling question was posed to you to get you to acknowledge the issue of the date of Texas vs White and the dates states seceded. You avoided the date stuff like it was the plague, so I had to break out the ridiculous to make my point. Your obvious answer of no would have triggered my loaded follow up question, which was exactly what you feared it would be.

 

[GunsOfFrankEaton]

Ahhh, ad hominem. Usually the sign of desperation. Do you really need Dave to distract from the hole you've put yourself in? It isn't going to work, but feel free. It's obvious why you want a distraction.

It's interesting that you left all of the dialogue about dates out of your "summary," and instead chose to focus on sidebar conversation. It's even more interesting that you bolded a smartass question I asked you.
Anyhow, just so we're clear what led us to this point, in the order the dialogue was posted...

I posted:


You responded:


My response:


Your response:


My response


Your response:


The subsequent responses from me revolve around the date of Texas vs White (that you provided the link for), the dates the Confederate states seceded, and the fact that those two things have zero relationship. Your subsequent responses have revolved around posting that I'm focused on the dates and not whatever you are referencing in Texas vs White in 1869 that you seem to believe is pertinent to 1860 events. This last paragraph is obviously a summary so this post wouldn't be 1869 miles long.

Soooooo, back to the very beginning of this entertaining convo... You stated that secession required the permission of the federal government. Did the Constitution prohibit secession? Was there any other law in existence that prohibited secession? If the answer is no to both of those questions, we can continue the dialogue and maybe cover the shit you're desperate to move into. If the answer to either of those questions is yes, post the relevant legal stuff, the proof as they say, and we can go from there.

BTW, the burger grilling question was posed to you to get you to acknowledge the issue of the date of Texas vs White and the dates states seceded. You avoided the date stuff like it was the plague, so I had to break out the ridiculous to make my point. Your obvious answer of no would have triggered my loaded follow up question, which was exactly what you feared it would be.

Ouch.

 

[my_2cents]

Sigh.

It's even more interesting that you bolded a smartass question I asked you.

I bolded that for a reason. You inserted a present day scenerio into the discussion and wanted answers about that. Now, stop for a moment and consider again, why I would have given you that case.

You stated that secession required the permission of the federal government.

Yes, and it does or it as an act of aggression.

Did the Constitution prohibit secession?

As I stated already, the Constitution created the federal government. It created a more perfect Union. Whether the 10th Amendment (or the Constitution) indicates there was no intent by the Framers or ratifiers for the Constitution to be consolidating document, has never been clear (as again, I've already posted).

Still, it was the Confederacy that engaged in the first acts of aggression by choosing to secede without the federal government's position (political aggression) and then taking and bombing federal property (military aggression). The Confederacy engaged in an armed insurrection against the United States of America.

Now, do you have any intent on answering the two questions I asked you?

 

[Medic007]

Now, do you have any intent on answering the two questions I asked you?

Yep, right after you answer:

Did the Constitution prohibit secession? Was there any other law in existence that prohibited secession?

 

[my_2cents]

Yep, right after you answer:

lol, did you even read my post? Seriously? Again, for like the fourth time now...

As I stated already, the Constitution created the federal government. It created a more perfect Union. Whether the 10th Amendment (or the Constitution) indicates there was no intent by the Framers or ratifiers for the Constitution to be consolidating document, has never been clear (as again, I've already posted).

Still, it was the Confederacy that engaged in the first acts of aggression by choosing to secede without the federal government's position (political aggression) and then taking and bombing federal property (military aggression). The Confederacy engaged in an armed insurrection against the United States of America.

Now, one last time, do you believe that the Confederacy did not engage in an insurrection? Do you believe that the Confederacy was not the aggressor?

 

[Medic007]

lol, did you even read my post? Seriously? Again, for like the fourth time now...

I scanned it for the answers to my two questions, but of course I didn't find them, hence my repeat of the two questions.

Again, answer these two simple yes/no questions with simple yes/no answers and we can get to whatever you fancy.

Did the Constitution prohibit secession? Was there any other law in existence that prohibited secession?

 

[my_2cents]

Again, answer these two simple yes/no questions with simple yes/no answers and we can get to whatever you fancy.

I've already given you the answers Medic, numerous times. But in one last attempt to move this conversation forward...

(1) It is debateable (sorry, the answer would be incorrect if I gave a definite yes or no).

(2) No, according to those who thought it was legal. Yes, according to those who thought it was illegal (the Constitution).

My personal view? The Constitution implicitely forbids secession and therefore it is illegal. Still, regardless of one's view on this, the Confederacy was still engaged in an armed insurrection against the United States and they were the aggressor. Which was my original point.

Now, your turn: Do you believe that the Confederacy did not engage in an insurrection? Do you believe that the Confederacy was not the aggressor?

 

[Medic007]

My personal view? The Constitution implicitely forbids secession and therefore it is illegal.

(2) No, according to those who thought it was legal. Yes, according to those who thought it was illegal (the Constitution).

Finally, answers! But before we continue with your questions, you must provide a direct quote(s) from the Constitution that supports your "implicitly forbids secession and therefore it is illegal." Your "personal view" and "those who thought" doesn't cut it.

I previously requested you do this if either answer was yes. If it's there, it should take you no time to post it.