‘We know who he is’: Donald Trump continues to target officer who shot Ashli Babbitt

Then to be consistent, it also negated the concept of a "perpetual union" and replaced it with "a more perfect union".

 

Yes...and a "more perfect union," is not one that may be dissolved more easily.

 

Well the police officer shot an unarmed veteran. We knew who killed George Floyd, Amahd arbury, pictures of them were placed all over the news.

Why should this officer get special treatment.

 

That's a subjective perception not empirical fact. It was the opinion of a judge established during almost immediately after Civil War in order to subjugate a defeated south.

And then there is that word "perpetual". The insertion of a perpetual union would also mean a union that CAN NOT BE DISSOLVED or altered per definition, under any circumstances.

Statist have this so wrong. Your opinions are self contradictory in this matter.

I think a more perfect union is one where a sovereign state can declare thier secession without threat of coercion or violence, unlike when the north invaded South Carolina.

 

The north didn't invade South Carolina. They were trying to resupply a federal fort, the land of which had been ceded to the federal government a number of years before South Carolina seceded.

 

@Bluesguy has already corrected this assertion for you. There is no reason to rehash it.

 

And, I replied. The position of Lincoln was that South Carolina was still a part of the United States and were in rebellion, not that they were a separate sovereign country.

 

They were attempting to setup a blockade, on disputed land under negotiation, of a foreign port an act of war, then Lincoln attempt to move more arms and troops through South Carolina/Confederate waters. Under international law you cannot mover your navy and military through another country's territory without their permission. It was entirely Linclon who forced the hand of South Carolina to protect their most valuable port from and interdiction by a foreign military. They had ever legal right to do so. They Lincoln invaded Virginia without provocation.

The Confederate States had NO intention NO desire to go to war with the United States. It was Lincoln who instigated the war and some historians make the very good case that he intentionally sent those naval forces there to force the hand of South Carolina to justify the war he wanted.

 

There was no negotiation. The land had been ceded to the federal government. And, there was no foreign port. Charleston was a U.S. port that was in the State of South Carolina, which was a part of the United States. The first battle of Bull Run (which the Union lost) was to seize the capitol of the illegal and rebellious Confederacy...but the guns had already been fired on Fort Sumter.

 

I saw. You were wrong. They has already declared thier secession.

 

Not an option.

 

Of course it was. This was even pre Texas v White.

 

I suppose South Carolina's option was war...and the Confederacy followed.

 

Again, as @Bluesguy pointed out, that wasn't the option chosen by South Carolina but by the Northern aggressors

 

The Confederacy fired first on Fort Sumter.

 

Again, already covered and corrected by @Bluesguy .

 

Nonsense.

 

Oh no, another Democrat narrative shot to hell. Don't you guys get tired of losing?
https://www.dailywire.com/news/fbi-...f-organized-plot-to-overturn-election-reuters
FBI Finds ‘Scant Evidence’ That January 6 Riot Was ‘Result Of Organized Plot To Overturn’ Election: Reuters

 

Not at all. @Bluesguy was thorough and you had viable arguments against responses. He would disprove your posts and you'd move on to dom e other bit of "nonsense" that he'd disprove again.

He provide viable arguments that proves the north were the aggressors and that secession was viable. Like all empires, the US aggressed and annex. Like empire before them (USSR, Brittain, Spain, etc) it will fall because of it.

History is not kind to those who do not learn it's lessons.

 

His argument rested on a falsehood...that Fort Sumter belonged to South Carolina. It did not. SC had ceded it to the federal government years before the outbreak of the rebellion.

 

It did not rest on a falsehood. It did not belong to the the federal government because as soon as South Carolina declared independence that land was rightfully thiers.

 

Turnabout is fair play. When the police shoot an unarmed black man the left demand this information so why can't we have this information? Why is the left so racist? It's ok for cops to shoot unarmed white women but they can't shoot unarmed blacks without naming names and demanding justice.

 

As soon as South Carolina declared themselves to be part of the Confederacy, they were in violation of the Constitution and in rebellion.

 

Yeh, but there was no fight forthcoming from that. Lincoln wanted to let them go. The war started when they fired on Sumter.

If Sumter became the property of the Confederacy even though it has been ceded to the Feds years before then any property of the Federal Government can be taken by any foreign government at any time. The Feds had a right to assert their property rights.

 

No they weren't. Upon declaring independence they were no longer subject to the Constitution.