Removal of Confederate statues and flags?

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,413
Republika Srpska
How is my interpretation questionable? The quote says that the only acceptable form of secession is secession from intolerable oppression and the quote calls this approved form of secession a revolution which, as you youself claimed, must mean that even this form is not really legal because if it was legal it wouldn't have been a revolution.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,109
Caribbean
How is my interpretation questionable?
I explained.

In proper form, after a claim has been rebutted, your are supposed to continue by surrebuttal, not by asking what the rebuttal means.

The quote says.
Repeating is not rebutting.

Are you just missing my point from earlier about "quoting" random individuals versus quoting official documents?
Why don't you address the secession clause of the Virginia Ratification Ordinance? Make a real surrebuttal?
How can you prove a man who passes a ratification law that codifies secession and establishes a Constitution that doesn't prohibit it - is actually against it? I don't think it can be done. So what if Madison changed his mind in 1833, or what if perhaps he wants to see the rancor end and is just giving Webster a pep talk. The 1788 law is the law,

Are you going through cognitive dissonance? If so, take some time and calm down.
Were you unaware that states explicitly reserved secession rights? Not revolution rights?
Do you understand that the Virginia Ratification establishes a secession right in the Constitution's galaxy of reserved rights?
Don't you think the truth better than Lincoln's propaganda? lol Maybe not.
You can explain. I'll pay attention.
 
Last edited:

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,413
Republika Srpska
How can you prove a man who passes a ratification law that codifies secession and establishes a Constitution that doesn't prohibit it - is actually against it?
How can you say a man who established a Constitution that formed a more "perfect union" than the "perpetual union" of the Articles of Confederation is actually someone who believed unilateral secession was legal?

About your Virginia Ratification stuff, well, it is pretty consistent with what Madison wrote later. A state may leave the union if it is oppressed, but Madison later clarified by calling that a revolution. And in fact, we have another letter by Madison regarding secession:
"A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it."
How was the South abused in 1861? By not having its choice elected as President?

Besides, you are inflating this "right to revolution" stuff. I mentioned it to show that not all secessionist Southerners believed in legality of their actions and that they used "right to revolution" as a justification. I never claimed official Southern documents included the phrase.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Fiver

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,109
Caribbean
How can you say a man who established a Constitution that formed a more "perfect union" than the "perpetual union" of the Articles of Confederation is actually someone who believed unilateral secession was legal?.
For several reasons. Perfecting has nothing to do with what powers are conferred or retained in the Articles. My understanding is perfecting is the process of curing defects, not a secret code word for surrendering the state right to alter abolish government. BTW, Lincoln didn't try that one. So, I don't think that is a historical argument. I never heard that one before, so maybe it's your creation.

And in fact, we have another letter by Madison regarding secession:
"A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it."
How was the South abused in 1861? By not having its choice elected as President?
Ah the Trist letter. Rebutting your own argument. Now, see if can figure out that the Webster letter and Trist letter contradict each other. And they are only private letters, and that the Webster letter contradicts everything else Madison ever wrote for public consumption or to make law.

It doesn't matter if you agree with the reasons for which a State decides to resume its rights. You don't have an override. Neither do I. Both the Declaration (on leaving Britain) and Federalist 43 (on leaving the first Confederacy and ratifying the Constitution) cite "safety and happiness" as sufficient cause. You have your opinion and they have theirs.

About your Virginia Ratification stuff, well, it is pretty consistent with what Madison wrote later. A state may leave the union if it is oppressed, but Madison later clarified by calling that a revolution.
What do you mean my "stuff." This is a law that both establishes the Constitution and reserves the right to secession.

I would like to see your substantiate that Madison called the ratification of the US Constitution a revolution? When you can't find it, I wonder what you will say next in order to avoid dealing with black letter law reserving the right to secession.

I hope you realize you are putting forth some shaky arguments.
 

Similar History Discussions