In all honesty I don't see how the court could have ruled any other way. I find the Southern concept that states can walk out at any time for any reason and in the process repudiating any responsibility for any obligations built up by the country as a whole while they were a part to be absolutely insane.
That is your thesis. I can respect that. Your conclusion is well thought out, vigorously argued, and substantiated with strong arguments. Now, can't I in good conscience reject it, which I do. Why? Because returning to Lee's quote. The Union could be dissolved by 1) consent or 2) revolution.
Yet Southern supporters believe that one is possible while the other is not, yet they cannot provide any evidence to support that.
That is not true. Many Southern supporters have offered up ample proof. And I have noticed that it is your habit to ignore that proof and slip slide around it in order to raise a red flag or herring in hopes that people will chase after it. I have also noticed that many just stop engaging you altogether because they tire of beating their head against a stone wall.
Heck, you even show up on a thread that listed the top songs of the south in order to pick a fight. Who has the time or energy to do that all the time. It's late in the evening here, and I have to get some other things finished. So, I will be saying good night.
Have a great day. I will agree to disagree with you. What you do is up to you.
No, the most that you can say is that the southern states acted in good faith, believing that secession was legal. However, when the issue actually came before the USSC, they found otherwise. That isn't the same as saying that it was legal until the court said it wasn't.
Now, can't I in good conscience reject it, which I do. Why? Because returning to Lee's quote. The Union could be dissolved by 1) consent or 2) revolution.
But the southern states didn't have consent, and the general southern argument is that their actions weren't revolution/rebellion (since that would permit it to be legally suppressed). What we have instead are states seceding without consent and crying foul when their action is then treated as rebellion.
Sorry but I'm a big believer in the rule of law and not necessarily the rule of force. The rebellion was solved when the last confederate soldier surrendered and was allowed to go home. The underlying legality of the southern acts of secession was settled until the Supreme Court had its say. It's the same with Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus in 1861. One can argue that one until the cows come home but since the matter has never been addressed by the full Supreme Court then whether or not a president can suspend habeas corpus is still an open issue.
That is your thesis. I can respect that. Your conclusion is well thought out, vigorously argued, and substantiated with strong arguments. Now, can't I in good conscience reject it, which I do. Why? Because returning to Lee's quote. The Union could be dissolved by 1) consent or 2) revolution.
And as I've stated before I agree with Lee's statement. I've also made it clear that the south chose revolution to acheive their aims, and tried to cloak it in an undeserved veil of legality by saying unilateral secession was permitted under the Constituiton.
Many Southern supporters have offered up ample proof.
I am sorry but that is not true. I'm not slipping or sliding or dodging anything, just holding you all to the same standards you apply to secession. In keeping with the grand southron arguement that the Constitution does not forbid secession please show me where the Constitution forbids expulsion. I'm still waiting.
Yeah I probably should have stayed out of that one. But don't you find it at all amusing that so many of those great southern songs listed were written by Yankees? If I started a thread of 100 great Northern songs and filled it with the works of Elvis Presley or Roy Clark or Jimmy Buffett wouldn't you have a field day with that? And rightly so?