I note that other than vehement denials, you apparently cannot rebut what I have said. I'm hardly surprised.

__________________
“Quod scripsi, scripsi"

"Sometimes, the source of the beautiful dawning light that drives back the darkness, is your house burning"

Apparently you have failed to actually read or understand the purpose of the United States Constitution, The Federalist Papers, or reviewed the Supreme Court decisions on state rights and secession. All of them refute everything you wrote. John Calhoun was the Rush Limbaugh of his era. If you want a constitutional discussion, put it on the appropriate forum, not a military one about battles and soldiers. Your pontificating about something that was justified, decisive and legal, ended against your position and ideas in 1865 at Appomattox Courthouse, Virginia, 146-years ago. That is why your posts are specious. Are you an American citizen? You seem to be posting as a loyal British subject of the crown. You are on the wrong side of history - ketchup.

I don't know how to simplify it any further for you. The country was founded with the assertion that no decree, law, constitution, oath, coustom, compact, contract, or convention trumped the "unalienable right." It is blatantly obvious that any court ruling in a coutry so founded to the contrary, is ludiccrous.

Again: “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, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”


I don't know how to simplify it any further for you. The country was founded with the assertion that no decree, law, constitution, oath, custom, compact, contract, or convention trumped the "unalienable right." It is blatantly obvious that any court ruling in a country so founded to the contrary is ludicrous.

If fact, any court ruling, legislation or decree to the contrary, must be seen as despotic.

And again, if you care to dispense with the Declaration, then the country is a sham anyway.

Lincoln made illegal, fratricidal war against a duly constituted foreign nation, he suspended Constitution rights as it pleased him, and the Congress illegally ratified the 14th Amendment to further Federal power in the aftermath of the tyrannical campaign.

These are facts. They may not comport with the myth of the long suffering, rail-splitting, abolitionist Lincoln has been so falsely portrayed as, but again they are facts. (I believe he actually did split rails in his youth.)
The South had at least the same rights to secede as did the original thirteen Colonies, and used much the same justification, and cited many o the same sources, including Jefferson and Washington. South Carolina fired upon a hostile foreign outpost in its own territorial waters to prevent Lincoln’s army from resupplying it, as any sovereign nation would be expected to do. The Union claimed to be preserving its country, and yet treated the South as a conquest.

I may have to create an educational series on this topic, for those willing to separate myth from reality.

__________________
“Quod scripsi, scripsi"

"Sometimes, the source of the beautiful dawning light that drives back the darkness, is your house burning"

No - you have done excellent research on the myth portion of your argument - that one you got down right on the money, the only trouble with it is that it is exactly that - myth.

The United States of America wasn't founded on the Declaration of Independence - it was founded on the United States Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence isn't part of that constitution, it is a totally separate document proclaiming the colonies reasons for separating from a foreign power, England.

President Lincoln had no concern for, and shouldn't have, for the Declaration, it was the Constitution of the United States that the Southern states were violating with secession, something not discussed in the constitution, but ruled on in court decisions, and the Federalist Papers as unlawful.

I don't know how much simpler I can make it for you - once in the Federal Union, and the Constitution was created to form a "more perfect union" the Southern colonies than became states of the new Federal Union, and were in forever. You could not have separate states creating armies, coining money, establishing treaties with foreign powers, confiscating Federal property and arsenals, post offices and forts, and be a state of America.

You also could not literally destroy the Federal Union of the United States of America by suddenly leaving it (over a disagreement concerning slavery - something the Constitution only recognized as the slave population counting for 1/3 of a human being on an individual basis).

Leaving the Union weakened each and every other state in that Union, and Lincoln, who swore the oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States upon becoming President, did exactly what was required when dealing with rebels, just like George Washington did in the Pennsylvania Whiskey uprising during his term of office. He sent Federal troops against the rebels to end the threat against the Federal Union.

You can post obtuse arguments on this board all day, but because you don't understand how this country was founded, and what the Civil War was based upon, and resulted in, your "arguments" have no merit. Secession was illegal once the Federal Constitution was ratified, the idea of secession was legally destroyed in a massive Civil War, and ended in 1865. Secession is illegal today, it will remain illegal for as long as the United States Constitution is the law of the land.

The Declaration of Independence is a moral statement to the world. If anybody follows your line of thinking, the Federal Union never comes into existence. British troops continue to occupy America. Your way leads to Civil War and modern incidents like Wounded Knee, Waco and the Oklahoma City Federal building bombing. If you can't see it, there is little point of discussing the matter with you - which I suspect you are just doing to see if you can aggravate me - which you in no way are accomplishing.

Maybe a refresher course in High School American Government 101 would help you immensely, but on this board - you are totally and absolutely incorrect in your interpretation of the role of the Federal Union, and the causes of the American Civil War and President Abraham Lincoln's decision to preserve that Federal Union through legal force. Nice try - but not even close bud.

Once again, you are in error. The country was founded and established by the Declaration. The Government was established and configured by the Constitution. Some people do have trouble recognizing that the two are not the same. (And I believe that Franklin and Jefferson would have said that the Nation had arisen as a natural process, separate and overlapping the country.)

But I do invite you to explain why we are not British subjects, since the ties that supposedly bound a British subject to his King in 1776 were stronger than those that bound a US citizen to their Government in 1861. That is, King George’s claim was based on Divine Right while the U.S. Constitution was never held to be more than a compact between mortal men.

Now, on the topic of who’s propagating myths, and who is not, notice that I cite historical precedence documentation, quotes, geography, and principles of sovereignty, and you merely make denials.

__________________
“Quod scripsi, scripsi"

"Sometimes, the source of the beautiful dawning light that drives back the darkness, is your house burning"

Well, my royalist friend, you are very proud of your "alleged" proof, with no qualms about boasting about it. However - The Declaration of Independence is not the law of the United States of America, the U.S. Constitution is, and that ends the discussion right there, once and for all. As to what Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin may have thought regarding the process which became America, they each outlined it well throughout their lives and writings. Speculation by you as to what they intended is - well - pure speculation - suggest you read their history. On one note, and only one, are you correct, the divine right of kings to rule. That was destroyed by the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. That is the end of my responses to you - the debate isn't worth it when one person, like you, has revisionist history all screwed up with actual history. Remember you are required to bow when you meet Queen Elizabeth in person. That is a requirement of British Crown subject's like yourself.

Royalist? I? It is thee, not me that set's the principles of the Revolution at naught, and see the People as the subjects and property of the state, not the state as the property of the People.

And Prithee, how could the Declaration and its principles destroy or dissolve anything, such as the compact twixt King and Commoner, and yet not the tie tween freemen and their freely constituted government?

It seemeth to me, that thou seest rights as no more than what thou wisheth them to be as it pleaseth thee on the moment.

__________________
“Quod scripsi, scripsi"

"Sometimes, the source of the beautiful dawning light that drives back the darkness, is your house burning"

LOL, now that response I liked.