Replies

Okay, in #64 you link to Durand's site, except you don't actually cite anything from him. In #68 you again link to Durand's site. In #292, you cite a PBS website the proves that a Rhode Island family was involved in the slave trade. In #325 you cite a 1927 apologia for secession, and in #481 you cite a blog post. I am humbled before your scholarship and your wealth of original sources.

Exactly right.

In familiar fashion, the blog post Philly cites in 481 makes the assertion...

His [Davis] release came after a finding by the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Salmon P. Chase, that there was nothing in the U.S. Constitution that prohibited the secession of states. If secession was not illegal, neither Davis nor any other Confederate leaders could be guilty of treason.

....and adds a hyperlinked footnote [2].

But clicking on the footnote takes you...nowhere...right back to the same blog.

Typical neo-secessionist "scholarship".

LOL! Bravo, mac! Where to start?

the blog post Philly cites in 481 makes the assertion...

First, you fail at reading. The blog starts with:

So I was surfing the ‘Net recently...when I came across a...page that made some interesting assertions:

then follows some cited text including your out-of-context quote, proceeded by:

Despite my dim knowledge of Civil War history, I found the bolded passage rather odd, since even I knew that Chief Justice Chase was not a Confederate sympathizer...It turns out my initial suspicion was correct: about the only things the aforementioned account gets right are...

at which point he proceeds to dismantle the quote you posted as if the blogger himself "asserted" it.

But clicking on the footnote takes you...nowhere...right back to the same blog.

Now not only do you fail at reading and comprehension, but also scrolling! You see, footnotes are at the bottom of a page. That's why they're called fooooootnotes. So had you read all those big words, or simply scrolled down a little, you'd find:
[2] A variant on this assertion, to the effect that, “the majority of justices on the U.S. Supreme Court at that time acknowledged the right of secession”, can be found here.

That then links to another blog.

Of course to validate any of the research on the blog, you'd have to read some of these mystical things called books, court rulings and memoirs he included for reference (though i've heard footnotes are pretty cryptic for some people). Then you may have to read the sources of some of THOSE books to validate or refute their conclusions.

Or you can stay ignorant and flame the message boards. Either way, your ignorance or scholarship doesn't change a single piece of history, so just do whatever's easier.

First and foremost garbage_truck, federal courts cannot decide the issue of secession. That decision rest equally on the shoulders of ultimate sovereigns, the people themselves.

If my State decided (and I hope they do) that you pinkos are more interested in wearing evening gowns than following a strict interpretation of the constitution, leaving you wallowing in socialist manure. That decision is ours and ours alone. Your courts can rule it unconstitutional all they wish, I don't care. Why should I care when they are to blame, just as you are, for the growth of Fedzilla.

Sure. I guess you could take us to International court, since we would be an Independent Country. That would work against you, wouldn't it? The fact is the United States has been at the forefront of helping other Countries win their Independence. And the most recent ruling regarding Kosovo by an International court would leave you one huge dog emblem short on your Mac_truck.