Posted on 07/22/2020 3:14:43 AM PDT by Kaslin
I think you’ve misread the articles of confederation and perpetual union. It clearly does not say the perpetual articles of confederation and union, or even the perpetual articles of confederation and perpetual union. The founders and framers meant for the Union(The United States of America) to be perpetual, Or as perpetual as any man made thing can be. They new when making the articles that the form of government might change.
And the Union, so far, has been perpetual. From it’s creation on July 4th 1776, it has never ceased to exist. It has changed it form of government twice. It has added states and territories, laws and amendments, but it is still the same perpetual union.
Some will point to North Carolina and Rhode Island’s late ratification of the constitution as proof the union was not perpetual. Simple logic will show this is not the case. Though neither state were part of the government under the constitution they were both still states in the United States of America. Neither state declared itself as an independent nation. Neither sent or received ambassadors. etc., etc.
In fact the Senate, in order to force Rhode Island to adopt the constitution, passed a bill to treat Rhode Island as a foreign nation in regards to trade. Why would such a bill need to be passed if it was not a part of the Union?
Only in your deluded mind has woodpusher won any of his arguments.
I’ve conclusively proven that the Union(The United States of America) that began it’s existence on 4 July 1776 has continued to exist uninterrupted since that day. There was a short period when two states were not part of the government currently operating at the time, but they were still apart of the United States of America.
In other words, nothing.
Fact is, Texas v. White is becoming meaningless as you can see nightly in Portland.
Wuh?
What had meaning in Bismarck's day (probably coined by the ole rail-splitter) still has relevance for you today: any argument is adequate if one has the majority of bayonets.
You argument wouldn't be valid if you had the whole Prussian army behind you.
I can't remember what I said when I drank my first beer.
“Which were?”
Gee, I thought bigots like you knew everything about the south.
Facts, yes. But I can't keep up with the Lost Cause imagination so I had to ask.
Since you hate the south so much, why are you so happy so many yankees died keeping them in the union?
You are so right about that. Lost causers are the best at deflecting, obfuscating, and distorting things to support their positions. Of course most times their efforts are pathetic and easily proven false, but they never admit when they are wrong.
On another site I had posted James Madison quote about the constitution having to be adopted in toto and forever and someone actually replied what did James Madison know about the constitution. Obviously the person didn’t know that James Madison is considered the father of the constitution.
I’ve gotten to the point where I’m really not arguing with them, I’m just presenting the real evidence so other people aren’t fooled.
“treason in 1860 can only be determined by prior law as developed up to that point in time.”
Article III Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
Is that prior enough for this discussion?
Au Contraire. I most certainly can.
Yes they would.
Just as I note yours.Kind of like a Robert Lee statue? Sorry, couldn't resist.
Or a Grant statue or a Lincoln statue....sorry, couldn't resist.
I would only do that if I were portraying you.
Just because the Supreme Court rules something does not mean it is true. The USSC has been wrong many times.
But you did do it and you weren’t “portraying” me - you nit.
Exactly. The North sure as hell wasn't fighting against slavery. They made that expressly clear to everybody.
Vengeance maybe - certainly not justice.
No he didn't.
Under your understanding of the language, every party to ever wage war with the US, from Mexico to Japan, has somehow committed "treason". Clearly, one has to be a US citizen and subject to US constitution jurisdiction to be able to commit treason, and the member states of the CSA had formalized their secession from the union prior the event that I am sure will insist began the war. So, unless "attempting secession" is also mentioned, you've got nothing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.