Guess What Folks - Secession Wasn't Treason

The Copperhead Chronicles ^ | August 2007 | Al Benson

[Delacon]

Did you read any of my so called cut a pastes? The Declaration is pointed to as a reason that the south’s secession was unconstitutional and illegal and therefore justly suppressed by use of force. The Declaration’s first line is “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth”. One people. IE only the whole of the people could allow any state to leave the union. Mr. Sandefur goes on to say that revolution is a valid means for any people to reject their govt if their revolution’s goal is to increase liberty amongst the people revolting. He maintains that the south didn’t have a valid claim to being a revolution because it wasn’t done to increase the liberty of the people but to prevent the liberty of a large part of its population, the slaves. In my opinion Mr. Sandefur is a bit off on this point. I think that a revolution is only valid if it succeeds, that all revolutions are illegal until they are over and the revolting peoples have set up a new government whatever it may be. This is certainly true. The worlds governments may support a revolution but can not deny the existing governments legal right to suppress said revolt. Also the worlds governments are constantly recognizing the governments of successful revolutions but have very little to say or can do when a revolution fails other than to put pressure on that government to limit the carnage and if a government suppresses a revolt, it is completely within its rights to mete out punishment as it sees fit.

[stand watie]

in other words, everybody on these threads should disregard your posts as they are NOTHING MORE than your personal OPINION.

while you are welcome to hold ANY opinion (it's called FREEDOM of speech/expression), may i tell you that yours are about as simplistic & "thought-FREE" as those of "x", the "useful idiot".

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

in other words, everybody on these threads should disregard your posts as they are NOTHING MORE than your personal OPINION.

while you are welcome to hold ANY opinion (it's called FREEDOM of speech/expression), may i tell you that yours are about as simplistic & "thought-FREE" as those of "x", the "useful idiot".

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

"Just to refresh your memory", EVERYBODY on these WBTS threads believes you to be a BIGOT,a NITWIT, a FOOL & a SERIAL LIAR.

pity, that you evidently are NOT smart enough to KNOW that you are the BUTT of "inside JOKES" about STUPID,IGNORANT, hate-FILLED, LIARS on FR.

do us ALL a favor & RESIGN from FR.

laughing AT you, BIGOT.

free dixie,sw

[Delacon]

yawn

[Delacon]

“An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the person”, “argument against the man”) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to an irrelevant characteristic about the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument’s proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.”

Typical tactic of trolls.

[stand watie]

"Typical tactic of trolls" =====> well,"Del", you should know about fact-FREE attacks on other FReepers, if anyone here does.

sorry,but pointing out that your attempt, to "dress up" your OPINIONS as IF they were facts, fools NOBODY. further, pointing out that your OPINIONS do NOT constitute either FACTS nor an argument is NOT an "ad hominum attack". instead it just points out that you "know NOT & know NOT that you know NOT".

as i've said before, you should request membership in "the DAMNyankee coven of lunatics,REVISIONISTS, nitwits,FOOLS, "useful idiots",BIGOTS, etc." from the unionist leader, Non-Sequitur. you'll fit right in.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

answering my comment with "yawn" indicates the VACUITY of your argument & nothing more.

PITY, that you don't evidently know the difference in an OPINION & a FACT.

free dixie,sw

[Delacon]

You have not addressed any of the arguments put forth in Mr. Sandefur’s article that I posted. You’ve chosen to attack me directly. Textbook ad hominem. I posted an article with which I much agree. It supports my opinions. I have replied back to others with my opinions. I believe that the south’s secession was unconstitutional. That is my opinion. Mr. Sandefur put forth this in several arguments and backed it up with historical references that he indexes at the bottom of the article. One may attack the validity of his arguments with counter arguments or by questioning the validity of his interpretation of the quotes and cases he references and not be accused of ad hominem. You have chosen to do neither. You have said this:

“sorry,but pointing out that your attempt, to “dress up” your OPINIONS as IF they were facts, fools NOBODY. further, pointing out that your OPINIONS do NOT constitute either FACTS nor an argument is NOT an “ad hominum attack”. instead it just points out that you “know NOT & know NOT that you know NOT”.

That is called a argumentum ad ignorantiam and/or argument from personal incredulity.

“The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam (”appeal to ignorance” [1]) or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true.

The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true, or alternately that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.

Both arguments commonly share this structure: a person regards the lack of evidence for one view as constituting evidence or proof that another view is true.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

[stand watie]

fyi, most intelligent people on FR automatically laugh AT anyone, who quotes "wikipedia" as a source on ANY subject, which is more serious than whether Britney Spears wears underpants or not. "wikipedia" is a BAD JOKE & nothing more.

thus i will also laugh AT you.

try learning to do your own research (from primary sources, rather than from secondary sources), rather than quoting someone like Sandefur & perhaps you will be taken seriously here.

free dixie,sw

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

fyi, most intelligent people on FR automatically laugh AT anyone, who quotes "wikipedia" as a source on ANY subject

Yes, it's much better to pick a random name, like, say, "Tyrone Brown," assign him to some college as a professor (and try to remember which college you had him at last time), and then make up quotes from him.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

So you believe that you have the legal right to rebel against the United States government in any configuration you can assemble (your family, your block, your town, your country, or all the left-handers from a tri-state area) and that the government has no right to put down your rebellion. Is that right?

But then you support forcing states back into the "Union" at the point of a bayonet - hmmmmmmmmmmm - sounds like a whole lot of freedom to me (/sarcasm).

Hey, if that's the way you feel about America, feel free to launch a rebellion or leave for some country that suits you better.

[Delacon]

He continues to attack the messenger(in this case wiki) instead of trying to refute the argument. More ad hominem. Typical tactic of tiresome trolls.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

It’s actually pretty funny to watch him using ad hominem attacks to deny that he’s using ad hominem attacks. Very meta.

[x]

1.fwiw, i was ON a plane that awful morning from SAT to BWI. i was more afraid than i ever was "over there", especially when we landed at ATL & saw the hard-eyed GA state troopers lining the path from the airliner to the airport.(to all of us, they seemed to be watching US "very carefully". maybe, with REASON as "one of our number" was seen being "led away in bracelets" by the ATL airport police!!!)

Yes, boys and girls, keep away from wikipedia and never trust articles like this one.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

fwiw, i was ON a plane that awful morning from SAT to BWI

Watie's posts on 9/11

[stand watie]

it's MUCH better to TELL THE TRUTH, which is a STRANGER to YOU, fool/BIGOT/serial liar.

that's why you are known on FR as "bubba, the LIAR".

(NOTE TO: "del", if you believe ANYTHING that "bubba" posts, i pity you.)

laughing AT you,"bubba".

free dixie, sw

[stand watie]

"del" as i said earlier, IF you decide to stay on these threads, be sure & ask "N-S, the DAMNyankee Minister of Propaganda" for membership in "the DAMNyankee coven of lunatics, nitwits, south-HATERS, bigots & "know nothings".

at least you'll RAISE the average IQ of the group by about 20 points.further, i predict you'll be welcomed.

fwiw, i again note that you're evidently clueLESS enough to believe "wikipedia", which marks you as UNknowledgeable & thus PERFECT for "the coven".

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

laughing AT you, BIGOT!

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

well, "x" in your case & that of the SERIAL LIAR, "bubba ho-tep", "wikipedia" seems to be CORRECT.

"bubba" LIES (& you are DUMB enough & filled with PREJUDICE against the southland/southerners AND evidently are a RACIST as well) & you WILLINGLY believe him.

PITY that BOTH of you are allowed to remain on FR.

free dixie,sw