Nor does anything you have posted change the fact that insurrection and secession are, by definition, different things.
If the states did not seceed, then there was an insurrection. If they did, then there was not, because, by defintion, there could be no insurrection
Its -that- simple.
So then, to the issue oI actually presented:
If the states did not seceed as you argue, then they were unconstitionally forced to ratify certain amenments.
Get it yet?
The federal government cannot force states to ratify amendments, and so, the 13th-15th were ratified unconstitutionally.
Last edited by Goobieman; 07-13-10 at 07:39 PM.
I took the liberty of correcting your typo’s while not changing your post in any way.
“When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.”
Since the Union or Federal Government did not recognize the Confederacy as legitimate or separate even before the court decision, you have no valid point whatsoever.
Let’s go a little further shall we?
“ Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.”
So it would appear that Texas, and the other suceeding states had never been outside the Union. So according to US law the state actions taken to implement the Ordinance of Secession were null and void.
Sort of puts a crimp in your argument doesent it? But lets move on to the final nail.
“ The authority for the performance of the first had been found in the power to suppress insurrection and carry on war; for the performance of the second, authority was derived from the obligation of the United States to guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government. The latter, indeed, in the case of a rebellion which involves the government of a State and for the time excludes the National authority from its limits, seems to be a necessary complement to the former” – Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868) at Cornell University Law School Supreme Court collection
Oh that has got to hurt!
Last edited by Black Dog; 07-13-10 at 07:53 PM.
No Lives Matter
Anyway, I don't care. If you want to live in your fantasy world, be my guest. As long as you realize it ain't going to happen and you are waisting yours and everyone else's time with this "anarchy" vision of utopia.
And libertarians still wonder why they are a joke to the rest of the nation.
No Lives Matter
the rich deal from a position of power and the poor's only power comes from voting for other elites who will buy their votes using the wealth of others. HOwever, the poor cannot stop that wealth from leaving and when it does they are screwed--much like birds who come to depend on a bird feeder all winter
one day, when the owner dies or stops putting out the feed, lots of birds starve to death.