Thread Rating:
  • 6 Vote(s) - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The difference between a book and a statue
#43
(06-23-2020, 08:21 AM)Antisthenes Wrote: But they did in fact start out as States in the Union and declared themselves as being separate from that Union. So in effect they were repudiating their Statehood in that Union. They didn't have that right. Consequently, that makes them treasonous in my minds eye.

No, they started out as colonies. Colonies who voluntarily entered a union of a new nation, and then later voluntarily left that union to form their own nation. Yes, they repudiated their statehood in that union, in favor of forming their own union. At the time, there was nothing illegal about that, no more illegal than a colony declaring itself independent of the British Crown. Of course they had that right - that's how the US was formed to begin with! Or are you asserting that the colonials were treasonous seditionists as well, and that the US is in fact an illegal and invalid nation?

Virginia, and 3 other Confederate states, did not secede until two days after Lincoln declared war on the Confederacy and called up 75,000 troops to prosecute his war. Their hand was forced into it.

The logical extension of your argument is that the UK can reclaim the US at any time, because we are an illegal nation of treasonous seditionists.


.
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.

Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’




Messages In This Thread
RE: The difference between a book and a statue - by Ninurta - 06-23-2020, 09:01 AM
RE: The difference between a book and a statue - by Wallfire - 06-23-2020, 10:25 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)