To protect and serve
 

On 8/19/17 4:36 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 9:15:29 AM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/19/17 10:06 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 15:04:46 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:


Many historians consider Truman in the top 10 of presidents.

Many historians consider Robert E Lee a great general and an honorable
man but you think he is just a traitor.


I wouldn't dispute Lee's military prowess. An honorable man wouldn't
have taken up arms against the United States.

He didn't. He took up arms to answer the call of his beloved state of Virginia.

"With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have therefore resigned my commission in the Army, and save in defense of my native State, with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed, I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword..." Lee


I've seen the quote before...it's just another rationalization. An
honorable soldier might have resigned a commission and stayed home. He
wouldn't have quit one side to take up arms with the enemy. And what was
he defending his native state from, the abolition of slavery? That's
some honorable position.

To protect and serve
 

4:34 PMKeyser Soze
On 8/19/17 4:36 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 9:15:29 AM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/19/17 10:06 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 15:04:46 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:


Many historians consider Truman in the top 10 of presidents.

Many historians consider Robert E Lee a great general and an honorable
man but you think he is just a traitor.


I wouldn't dispute Lee's military prowess. An honorable man wouldn't
have taken up arms against the United States.

He didn't. He took up arms to answer the call of his beloved state of Virginia.

"With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have therefore resigned my commission in the Army, and save in defense of my native State, with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed, I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword..." Lee


I've seen the quote before...it's just another rationalization. An
honorable soldier might have resigned a commission and stayed home. He
wouldn't have quit one side to take up arms with the enemy. And what was
he defending his native state from, the abolition of slavery? That's
some honorable position.
....
"So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and have suffered all I have suffered, to have this object attained."

To protect and serve
 

On 8/19/17 6:08 PM, Tim wrote:
4:34 PMKeyser Soze
On 8/19/17 4:36 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 9:15:29 AM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/19/17 10:06 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 15:04:46 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:


Many historians consider Truman in the top 10 of presidents.

Many historians consider Robert E Lee a great general and an honorable
man but you think he is just a traitor.


I wouldn't dispute Lee's military prowess. An honorable man wouldn't
have taken up arms against the United States.

He didn't. He took up arms to answer the call of his beloved state of Virginia.

"With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have therefore resigned my commission in the Army, and save in defense of my native State, with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed, I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword..." Lee


I've seen the quote before...it's just another rationalization. An
honorable soldier might have resigned a commission and stayed home. He
wouldn't have quit one side to take up arms with the enemy. And what was
he defending his native state from, the abolition of slavery? That's
some honorable position.
...
"So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and have suffered all I have suffered, to have this object attained."



Ex post facto

To protect and serve
 

5:50 PMKeyser Soze
- show quoted text -
Ex post facto
.....

You're way out there, Harry. Keep grabbing for straws though.

To protect and serve
 

Tim wrote:

5:50 PMKeyser Soze
- show quoted text -
Ex post facto
....

You're way out there, Harry. Keep grabbing for straws though.


Being superstitious is way out there.

--
Posted with my iPhone 7+.

To protect and serve
 

On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 6:13:34 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
Tim wrote:

5:50 PMKeyser Soze
- show quoted text -
Ex post facto
....

You're way out there, Harry. Keep grabbing for straws though.


Being superstitious is way out there.

--
Posted with my iPhone 7+.

That's what i mean. You really do need to wake up to reality.

To protect and serve
 

Tim wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 6:13:34 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
Tim wrote:

5:50 PMKeyser Soze
- show quoted text -
Ex post facto
....

You're way out there, Harry. Keep grabbing for straws though.


Being superstitious is way out there.

--
Posted with my iPhone 7+.

That's what i mean. You really do need to wake up to reality.


This from a guy who embraces the superstition of religion?

--
Posted with my iPhone 7+.

To protect and serve
 

On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 6:42:02 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
Tim wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 6:13:34 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
Tim wrote:

5:50 PMKeyser Soze
- show quoted text -
Ex post facto
....

You're way out there, Harry. Keep grabbing for straws though.


Being superstitious is way out there.

--
Posted with my iPhone 7+.

That's what i mean. You really do need to wake up to reality.


This from a guy who embraces the superstition of religion?

--
Posted with my iPhone 7+.

Why do you bring up religion Harry, I don't. True, I practice Christianity, but you always have something, usually negative, to post in here about people of faith. You bring it up a lot. No one else does.

To protect and serve
 

On 8/19/17 8:31 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 6:42:02 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
Tim wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 6:13:34 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
Tim wrote:

5:50 PMKeyser Soze
- show quoted text -
Ex post facto
....

You're way out there, Harry. Keep grabbing for straws though.


Being superstitious is way out there.

--
Posted with my iPhone 7+.

That's what i mean. You really do need to wake up to reality.


This from a guy who embraces the superstition of religion?

--
Posted with my iPhone 7+.

Why do you bring up religion Harry, I don't. True, I practice Christianity, but you always have something, usually negative, to post in here about people of faith. You bring it up a lot. No one else does.



You are the one who brought up "reality." as if, as a "religious
person," or core religious beliefs had any connection to reality. The
more I see of "religious belief" and many of the people who practice it,
or claim to practice it, the more it and its practitioners disgust me. I
have met some people in life who were religious and quite decent, though
I have no reason to believe it was because of their religious beliefs.
I've also met a lot of people in life who were not in any way religious
and were decent.

Oh,"people of faith"...is snarly behavior concomitant with faith?

To protect and serve
 

On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 7:47:22 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/19/17 8:31 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 6:42:02 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
Tim wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 6:13:34 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
Tim wrote:

5:50 PMKeyser Soze
- show quoted text -
Ex post facto
....

You're way out there, Harry. Keep grabbing for straws though.


Being superstitious is way out there.

--
Posted with my iPhone 7+.

That's what i mean. You really do need to wake up to reality.


This from a guy who embraces the superstition of religion?

--
Posted with my iPhone 7+.

Why do you bring up religion Harry, I don't. True, I practice Christianity, but you always have something, usually negative, to post in here about people of faith. You bring it up a lot. No one else does.



You are the one who brought up "reality." as if, as a "religious
person," or core religious beliefs had any connection to reality. The
more I see of "religious belief" and many of the people who practice it,
or claim to practice it, the more it and its practitioners disgust me. I
have met some people in life who were religious and quite decent, though
I have no reason to believe it was because of their religious beliefs.
I've also met a lot of people in life who were not in any way religious
and were decent.

Oh,"people of faith"...is snarly behavior concomitant with faith?

No, I brought up reality. thats all. No need to read between the lines and make something out of nothing. But you're good at that Harry. I really shouldn't expect less of you.

To protect and serve
 

On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 8:47:22 PM UTC-4, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/19/17 8:31 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 6:42:02 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
Tim wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 6:13:34 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
Tim wrote:

5:50 PMKeyser Soze
- show quoted text -
Ex post facto
....

You're way out there, Harry. Keep grabbing for straws though.


Being superstitious is way out there.

--
Posted with my iPhone 7+.

That's what i mean. You really do need to wake up to reality.


This from a guy who embraces the superstition of religion?

--
Posted with my iPhone 7+.

Why do you bring up religion Harry, I don't. True, I practice Christianity, but you always have something, usually negative, to post in here about people of faith. You bring it up a lot. No one else does.



You are the one who brought up "reality." as if, as a "religious
person," or core religious beliefs had any connection to reality. The
more I see of "religious belief" and many of the people who practice it,
or claim to practice it, the more it and its practitioners disgust me. I
have met some people in life who were religious and quite decent, though
I have no reason to believe it was because of their religious beliefs.
I've also met a lot of people in life who were not in any way religious
and were decent.

Oh,"people of faith"...is snarly behavior concomitant with faith?

Harry, you are a ****ing asshole.

To protect and serve
 

On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 7:47:22 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:


Oh,"people of faith"...is snarly behavior concomitant with faith?

Of course not, Harry. You prove that in here on practically a daily basis.

To protect and serve
 

On 8/20/17 5:14 AM, Its Me wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 8:47:22 PM UTC-4, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/19/17 8:31 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 6:42:02 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
Tim wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 6:13:34 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
Tim wrote:

5:50 PMKeyser Soze
- show quoted text -
Ex post facto
....

You're way out there, Harry. Keep grabbing for straws though.


Being superstitious is way out there.

--
Posted with my iPhone 7+.

That's what i mean. You really do need to wake up to reality.


This from a guy who embraces the superstition of religion?

--
Posted with my iPhone 7+.

Why do you bring up religion Harry, I don't. True, I practice Christianity, but you always have something, usually negative, to post in here about people of faith. You bring it up a lot. No one else does.



You are the one who brought up "reality." as if, as a "religious
person," or core religious beliefs had any connection to reality. The
more I see of "religious belief" and many of the people who practice it,
or claim to practice it, the more it and its practitioners disgust me. I
have met some people in life who were religious and quite decent, though
I have no reason to believe it was because of their religious beliefs.
I've also met a lot of people in life who were not in any way religious
and were decent.

Oh,"people of faith"...is snarly behavior concomitant with faith?

Harry, you are a ****ing asshole.


So, you're a religious person, eh?

To protect and serve
 

On Sat, 19 Aug 2017 17:34:54 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/19/17 4:36 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 9:15:29 AM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/19/17 10:06 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 15:04:46 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:


Many historians consider Truman in the top 10 of presidents.

Many historians consider Robert E Lee a great general and an honorable
man but you think he is just a traitor.


I wouldn't dispute Lee's military prowess. An honorable man wouldn't
have taken up arms against the United States.

He didn't. He took up arms to answer the call of his beloved state of Virginia.

"With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have therefore resigned my commission in the Army, and save in defense of my native State, with the sincere hope that my poor
services may never be needed, I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword..." Lee


I've seen the quote before...it's just another rationalization. An
honorable soldier might have resigned a commission and stayed home. He
wouldn't have quit one side to take up arms with the enemy. And what was
he defending his native state from, the abolition of slavery? That's
some honorable position.

You miss the point that the State of Virginia was of more concern to
him than a bunch of politicians in another state. This was a time when
most people lived their whole lives within a 100 mile radius of where
they were born and they more closely identified with their state than
the federal government. Bear in mind the only federal office they
actually voted on was their house members and there was very little
the federal government controlled in their lives. The state government
was the government.

To protect and serve
 

On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 10:08:58 AM UTC-4, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/20/17 5:14 AM, Its Me wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 8:47:22 PM UTC-4, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/19/17 8:31 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 6:42:02 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
Tim wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 6:13:34 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
Tim wrote:

5:50 PMKeyser Soze
- show quoted text -
Ex post facto
....

You're way out there, Harry. Keep grabbing for straws though.


Being superstitious is way out there.

--
Posted with my iPhone 7+.

That's what i mean. You really do need to wake up to reality.


This from a guy who embraces the superstition of religion?

--
Posted with my iPhone 7+.

Why do you bring up religion Harry, I don't. True, I practice Christianity, but you always have something, usually negative, to post in here about people of faith. You bring it up a lot. No one else does.



You are the one who brought up "reality." as if, as a "religious
person," or core religious beliefs had any connection to reality. The
more I see of "religious belief" and many of the people who practice it,
or claim to practice it, the more it and its practitioners disgust me. I
have met some people in life who were religious and quite decent, though
I have no reason to believe it was because of their religious beliefs.
I've also met a lot of people in life who were not in any way religious
and were decent.

Oh,"people of faith"...is snarly behavior concomitant with faith?

Harry, you are a ****ing asshole.


So, you're a religious person, eh?

It doesn't take a "religious" person to see that.

To protect and serve
 

On Sat, 19 Aug 2017 18:50:30 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

Ex post facto

Sort of like the nice things you say about Truman

To protect and serve
 

On Sat, 19 Aug 2017 19:42:00 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:


This from a guy who embraces the superstition of religion?

Hold on, Harry is going off road again.

To protect and serve
 

On 8/20/17 10:38 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Aug 2017 17:34:54 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/19/17 4:36 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 9:15:29 AM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/19/17 10:06 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 15:04:46 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:


Many historians consider Truman in the top 10 of presidents.

Many historians consider Robert E Lee a great general and an honorable
man but you think he is just a traitor.


I wouldn't dispute Lee's military prowess. An honorable man wouldn't
have taken up arms against the United States.

He didn't. He took up arms to answer the call of his beloved state of Virginia.

"With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have therefore resigned my commission in the Army, and save in defense of my native State, with the sincere hope that my poor
services may never be needed, I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword..." Lee


I've seen the quote before...it's just another rationalization. An
honorable soldier might have resigned a commission and stayed home. He
wouldn't have quit one side to take up arms with the enemy. And what was
he defending his native state from, the abolition of slavery? That's
some honorable position.

You miss the point that the State of Virginia was of more concern to
him than a bunch of politicians in another state. This was a time when
most people lived their whole lives within a 100 mile radius of where
they were born and they more closely identified with their state than
the federal government. Bear in mind the only federal office they
actually voted on was their house members and there was very little
the federal government controlled in their lives. The state government
was the government.


No doubt that was why the country was called the *United* States of
America. Lee was a traitor and seditionist. You haven't anything that
would convince anyone otherwise.

To protect and serve
 

Its Me wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 8:47:22 PM UTC-4, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/19/17 8:31 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 6:42:02 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
Tim wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 6:13:34 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
Tim wrote:

5:50 PMKeyser Soze
- show quoted text -
Ex post facto
....

You're way out there, Harry. Keep grabbing for straws though.


Being superstitious is way out there.

--
Posted with my iPhone 7+.

That's what i mean. You really do need to wake up to reality.


This from a guy who embraces the superstition of religion?

--
Posted with my iPhone 7+.

Why do you bring up religion Harry, I don't. True, I practice
Christianity, but you always have something, usually negative, to post
in here about people of faith. You bring it up a lot. No one else does.



You are the one who brought up "reality." as if, as a "religious
person," or core religious beliefs had any connection to reality. The
more I see of "religious belief" and many of the people who practice it,
or claim to practice it, the more it and its practitioners disgust me. I
have met some people in life who were religious and quite decent, though
I have no reason to believe it was because of their religious beliefs.
I've also met a lot of people in life who were not in any way religious
and were decent.

Oh,"people of faith"...is snarly behavior concomitant with faith?

Harry, you are a ****ing asshole.


As fat as he is, you may need to,drop the f$&king part.

To protect and serve
 

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/20/17 10:38 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Aug 2017 17:34:54 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/19/17 4:36 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 9:15:29 AM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/19/17 10:06 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 15:04:46 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:


Many historians consider Truman in the top 10 of presidents.

Many historians consider Robert E Lee a great general and an honorable
man but you think he is just a traitor.


I wouldn't dispute Lee's military prowess. An honorable man wouldn't
have taken up arms against the United States.

He didn't. He took up arms to answer the call of his beloved state of Virginia.

"With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty
of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to
raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have
therefore resigned my commission in the Army, and save in defense of
my native State, with the sincere hope that my poor
services may never be needed, I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword..." Lee


I've seen the quote before...it's just another rationalization. An
honorable soldier might have resigned a commission and stayed home. He
wouldn't have quit one side to take up arms with the enemy. And what was
he defending his native state from, the abolition of slavery? That's
some honorable position.

You miss the point that the State of Virginia was of more concern to
him than a bunch of politicians in another state. This was a time when
most people lived their whole lives within a 100 mile radius of where
they were born and they more closely identified with their state than
the federal government. Bear in mind the only federal office they
actually voted on was their house members and there was very little
the federal government controlled in their lives. The state government
was the government.


No doubt that was why the country was called the *United* States of
America. Lee was a traitor and seditionist. You haven't anything that
would convince anyone otherwise.


Yup. states were a major part of the name. Sort of like the European
Union. Separate governments combing for a specific purpose.

To protect and serve
 

On 8/20/17 1:40 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/20/17 10:38 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Aug 2017 17:34:54 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/19/17 4:36 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 9:15:29 AM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/19/17 10:06 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 15:04:46 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:


Many historians consider Truman in the top 10 of presidents.

Many historians consider Robert E Lee a great general and an honorable
man but you think he is just a traitor.


I wouldn't dispute Lee's military prowess. An honorable man wouldn't
have taken up arms against the United States.

He didn't. He took up arms to answer the call of his beloved state of Virginia.

"With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty
of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to
raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have
therefore resigned my commission in the Army, and save in defense of
my native State, with the sincere hope that my poor
services may never be needed, I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword..." Lee


I've seen the quote before...it's just another rationalization. An
honorable soldier might have resigned a commission and stayed home. He
wouldn't have quit one side to take up arms with the enemy. And what was

he defending his native state from, the abolition of slavery? That's
some honorable position.

You miss the point that the State of Virginia was of more concern to
him than a bunch of politicians in another state. This was a time when
most people lived their whole lives within a 100 mile radius of where
they were born and they more closely identified with their state than
the federal government. Bear in mind the only federal office they
actually voted on was their house members and there was very little
the federal government controlled in their lives. The state government
was the government.


No doubt that was why the country was called the *United* States of
America. Lee was a traitor and seditionist. You haven't anything that
would convince anyone otherwise.


Yup. states were a major part of the name. Sort of like the European
Union. Separate governments combing for a specific purpose.


The countries making up the European Union are free to vote themselves
out of it, ala Brexit. The states in the United States are not free to
vote themselves out of the American union, much as I joke about
California, et al, moving on.

To protect and serve
 

On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 11:47:46 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:


You miss the point that the State of Virginia was of more concern to
him than a bunch of politicians in another state. This was a time when
most people lived their whole lives within a 100 mile radius of where
they were born and they more closely identified with their state than
the federal government. Bear in mind the only federal office they
actually voted on was their house members and there was very little
the federal government controlled in their lives. The state government
was the government.


No doubt that was why the country was called the *United* States of
America. Lee was a traitor and seditionist. You haven't anything that
would convince anyone otherwise.

That assumes you think wanting to secede is the same as being a
traitor. If so California is full of traitors right now. Should we be
invading them?

To protect and serve
 

On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 14:53:16 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

Yup. states were a major part of the name. Sort of like the European
Union. Separate governments combing for a specific purpose.


The countries making up the European Union are free to vote themselves
out of it, ala Brexit. The states in the United States are not free to
vote themselves out of the American union, much as I joke about
California, et al, moving on.


Just exactly where is that defined in the Constitution?
They talk about how you get in but they are silent about how or even
if you can leave.

To protect and serve
 

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/20/17 1:40 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/20/17 10:38 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Aug 2017 17:34:54 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/19/17 4:36 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 9:15:29 AM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/19/17 10:06 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 15:04:46 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:


Many historians consider Truman in the top 10 of presidents.

Many historians consider Robert E Lee a great general and an honorable
man but you think he is just a traitor.


I wouldn't dispute Lee's military prowess. An honorable man wouldn't
have taken up arms against the United States.

He didn't. He took up arms to answer the call of his beloved state of Virginia.

"With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty
of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to
raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have
therefore resigned my commission in the Army, and save in defense of
my native State, with the sincere hope that my poor
services may never be needed, I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword..." Lee


I've seen the quote before...it's just another rationalization. An
honorable soldier might have resigned a commission and stayed home. He
wouldn't have quit one side to take up arms with the enemy. And what was

he defending his native state from, the abolition of slavery? That's
some honorable position.

You miss the point that the State of Virginia was of more concern to
him than a bunch of politicians in another state. This was a time when
most people lived their whole lives within a 100 mile radius of where
they were born and they more closely identified with their state than
the federal government. Bear in mind the only federal office they
actually voted on was their house members and there was very little
the federal government controlled in their lives. The state government
was the government.


No doubt that was why the country was called the *United* States of
America. Lee was a traitor and seditionist. You haven't anything that
would convince anyone otherwise.


Yup. states were a major part of the name. Sort of like the European
Union. Separate governments combing for a specific purpose.


The countries making up the European Union are free to vote themselves
out of it, ala Brexit. The states in the United States are not free to
vote themselves out of the American union, much as I joke about
California, et al, moving on.





Where is or which the law that is preventing seceding?

To protect and serve
 

On 8/20/17 2:54 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 11:47:46 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:


You miss the point that the State of Virginia was of more concern to
him than a bunch of politicians in another state. This was a time when
most people lived their whole lives within a 100 mile radius of where
they were born and they more closely identified with their state than
the federal government. Bear in mind the only federal office they
actually voted on was their house members and there was very little
the federal government controlled in their lives. The state government
was the government.


No doubt that was why the country was called the *United* States of
America. Lee was a traitor and seditionist. You haven't anything that
would convince anyone otherwise.

That assumes you think wanting to secede is the same as being a
traitor. If so California is full of traitors right now. Should we be
invading them?



Wanting to secede? Lee and his seditious, traitorous buddies *did* secede.

To protect and serve
 

On 8/20/17 3:56 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 14:53:16 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

Yup. states were a major part of the name. Sort of like the European
Union. Separate governments combing for a specific purpose.


The countries making up the European Union are free to vote themselves
out of it, ala Brexit. The states in the United States are not free to
vote themselves out of the American union, much as I joke about
California, et al, moving on.


Just exactly where is that defined in the Constitution?
They talk about how you get in but they are silent about how or even
if you can leave.


A number of states left...you recall what that got them?

To protect and serve
 

On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 18:33:02 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/20/17 3:56 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 14:53:16 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

Yup. states were a major part of the name. Sort of like the European
Union. Separate governments combing for a specific purpose.


The countries making up the European Union are free to vote themselves
out of it, ala Brexit. The states in the United States are not free to
vote themselves out of the American union, much as I joke about
California, et al, moving on.


Just exactly where is that defined in the Constitution?
They talk about how you get in but they are silent about how or even
if you can leave.


A number of states left...you recall what that got them?

An aggressive and unconstitutional invasion from the North?

You still duck the question. Where, in the constitution, does it say
the states can't secede? Where does it say the president has the
authority to declare war on them for it?
Just as a sanity check I read the constitution carefully again today
and it is silent on the issue.
It is interesting that Lincoln recognized the secession when it was
convenient to do so while denying it was actually valid. (Specifically
Article IV Section 3(1) and West Virginia)

To protect and serve
 

On 8/20/17 9:58 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 18:33:02 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/20/17 3:56 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 14:53:16 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

Yup. states were a major part of the name. Sort of like the European
Union. Separate governments combing for a specific purpose.


The countries making up the European Union are free to vote themselves
out of it, ala Brexit. The states in the United States are not free to
vote themselves out of the American union, much as I joke about
California, et al, moving on.


Just exactly where is that defined in the Constitution?
They talk about how you get in but they are silent about how or even
if you can leave.


A number of states left...you recall what that got them?

An aggressive and unconstitutional invasion from the North?

You still duck the question. Where, in the constitution, does it say
the states can't secede? Where does it say the president has the
authority to declare war on them for it?
Just as a sanity check I read the constitution carefully again today
and it is silent on the issue.
It is interesting that Lincoln recognized the secession when it was
convenient to do so while denying it was actually valid. (Specifically
Article IV Section 3(1) and West Virginia)


You're the best "snickers man" on here.

To protect and serve
 

On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 22:01:27 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/20/17 9:58 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 18:33:02 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/20/17 3:56 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 14:53:16 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

Yup. states were a major part of the name. Sort of like the European
Union. Separate governments combing for a specific purpose.


The countries making up the European Union are free to vote themselves
out of it, ala Brexit. The states in the United States are not free to
vote themselves out of the American union, much as I joke about
California, et al, moving on.


Just exactly where is that defined in the Constitution?
They talk about how you get in but they are silent about how or even
if you can leave.


A number of states left...you recall what that got them?

An aggressive and unconstitutional invasion from the North?

You still duck the question. Where, in the constitution, does it say
the states can't secede? Where does it say the president has the
authority to declare war on them for it?
Just as a sanity check I read the constitution carefully again today
and it is silent on the issue.
It is interesting that Lincoln recognized the secession when it was
convenient to do so while denying it was actually valid. (Specifically
Article IV Section 3(1) and West Virginia)


You're the best "snickers man" on here.

You still have not told me where Lincoln got the constitutional
authority to invade the south.

To protect and serve
 

On 8/20/2017 6:33 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/20/17 3:56 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 14:53:16 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

Yup.Â* states were a major part of the name.Â* Sort of like the European
Union.Â* Separate governments combing for a specific purpose.


The countries making up the European Union are free to vote themselves
out of it, ala Brexit. The states in the United States are not free to
vote themselves out of the American union, much as I joke about
California, et al, moving on.


Just exactly where is that defined in the Constitution?
They talk about how you get in but they are silent about how or even
if you can leave.


A number of states left...you recall what that got them?


It wasn't until *after* the Civil War that the Supreme Court ruled (in
1889) that states did not have the Constitutional right to unilaterally
secede.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

To protect and serve
 

On 8/20/2017 9:58 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 18:33:02 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/20/17 3:56 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 14:53:16 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

Yup. states were a major part of the name. Sort of like the European
Union. Separate governments combing for a specific purpose.


The countries making up the European Union are free to vote themselves
out of it, ala Brexit. The states in the United States are not free to
vote themselves out of the American union, much as I joke about
California, et al, moving on.


Just exactly where is that defined in the Constitution?
They talk about how you get in but they are silent about how or even
if you can leave.


A number of states left...you recall what that got them?

An aggressive and unconstitutional invasion from the North?

You still duck the question. Where, in the constitution, does it say
the states can't secede? Where does it say the president has the
authority to declare war on them for it?
Just as a sanity check I read the constitution carefully again today
and it is silent on the issue.
It is interesting that Lincoln recognized the secession when it was
convenient to do so while denying it was actually valid. (Specifically
Article IV Section 3(1) and West Virginia)



Texas vs White Supreme Court decision in 1889.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

To protect and serve
 

On 8/20/17 11:33 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 22:01:27 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/20/17 9:58 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 18:33:02 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/20/17 3:56 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 14:53:16 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

Yup. states were a major part of the name. Sort of like the European
Union. Separate governments combing for a specific purpose.


The countries making up the European Union are free to vote themselves
out of it, ala Brexit. The states in the United States are not free to
vote themselves out of the American union, much as I joke about
California, et al, moving on.


Just exactly where is that defined in the Constitution?
They talk about how you get in but they are silent about how or even
if you can leave.


A number of states left...you recall what that got them?

An aggressive and unconstitutional invasion from the North?

You still duck the question. Where, in the constitution, does it say
the states can't secede? Where does it say the president has the
authority to declare war on them for it?
Just as a sanity check I read the constitution carefully again today
and it is silent on the issue.
It is interesting that Lincoln recognized the secession when it was
convenient to do so while denying it was actually valid. (Specifically
Article IV Section 3(1) and West Virginia)


You're the best "snickers man" on here.

You still have not told me where Lincoln got the constitutional
authority to invade the south.


Read Article II. The Constitution grants the POTUS the power to
unilaterally order military action in defense of the United States when
he determines that a foreign political entity poses a clear and present
danger to the safety and security of the United States.

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the
United States, and of the Militia of the several States..."

South Carolina initiated the shooting war against the United States by
its firing on Ft. Sumter. Lincoln, as commander in chief, was
Constitutionally obligated to respond and defend the fort.

To protect and serve
 

On Mon, 21 Aug 2017 07:19:45 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



It wasn't until *after* the Civil War that the Supreme Court ruled (in
1889) that states did not have the Constitutional right to unilaterally
secede.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

1868 but still somewhat on point. It is interesting that the decision
is based on a grammatical error in the preamble. There is no such
thing as "more perfect" ;-)
That also assumes the union is less perfect without the south. Harry
thinks the US would BE perfect if it wasn't for the south and says it
every chance he gets.

To protect and serve
 

On Mon, 21 Aug 2017 09:21:01 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/20/17 11:33 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 22:01:27 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/20/17 9:58 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 18:33:02 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/20/17 3:56 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 14:53:16 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

Yup. states were a major part of the name. Sort of like the European
Union. Separate governments combing for a specific purpose.


The countries making up the European Union are free to vote themselves
out of it, ala Brexit. The states in the United States are not free to
vote themselves out of the American union, much as I joke about
California, et al, moving on.


Just exactly where is that defined in the Constitution?
They talk about how you get in but they are silent about how or even
if you can leave.


A number of states left...you recall what that got them?

An aggressive and unconstitutional invasion from the North?

You still duck the question. Where, in the constitution, does it say
the states can't secede? Where does it say the president has the
authority to declare war on them for it?
Just as a sanity check I read the constitution carefully again today
and it is silent on the issue.
It is interesting that Lincoln recognized the secession when it was
convenient to do so while denying it was actually valid. (Specifically
Article IV Section 3(1) and West Virginia)


You're the best "snickers man" on here.

You still have not told me where Lincoln got the constitutional
authority to invade the south.


Read Article II. The Constitution grants the POTUS the power to
unilaterally order military action in defense of the United States when
he determines that a foreign political entity poses a clear and present
danger to the safety and security of the United States.

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the
United States, and of the Militia of the several States..."

South Carolina initiated the shooting war against the United States by
its firing on Ft. Sumter. Lincoln, as commander in chief, was
Constitutionally obligated to respond and defend the fort.


You could also argue that the occupation of Ft Sumpter after South
Carolina seceded was illegal. The victors always get to make the laws
fit their victory. That is why Goering was in the dock and "Bomber"
Harris was not ... for the exact same crime. (waging unlimited war on
civilians)

To protect and serve
 

wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2017 09:21:01 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/20/17 11:33 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 22:01:27 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/20/17 9:58 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 18:33:02 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/20/17 3:56 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 14:53:16 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

Yup. states were a major part of the name. Sort of like the European
Union. Separate governments combing for a specific purpose.


The countries making up the European Union are free to vote themselves
out of it, ala Brexit. The states in the United States are not free to
vote themselves out of the American union, much as I joke about
California, et al, moving on.


Just exactly where is that defined in the Constitution?
They talk about how you get in but they are silent about how or even
if you can leave.


A number of states left...you recall what that got them?

An aggressive and unconstitutional invasion from the North?

You still duck the question. Where, in the constitution, does it say
the states can't secede? Where does it say the president has the
authority to declare war on them for it?
Just as a sanity check I read the constitution carefully again today
and it is silent on the issue.
It is interesting that Lincoln recognized the secession when it was
convenient to do so while denying it was actually valid. (Specifically
Article IV Section 3(1) and West Virginia)


You're the best "snickers man" on here.

You still have not told me where Lincoln got the constitutional
authority to invade the south.


Read Article II. The Constitution grants the POTUS the power to
unilaterally order military action in defense of the United States when
he determines that a foreign political entity poses a clear and present
danger to the safety and security of the United States.

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the
United States, and of the Militia of the several States..."

South Carolina initiated the shooting war against the United States by
its firing on Ft. Sumter. Lincoln, as commander in chief, was
Constitutionally obligated to respond and defend the fort.


You could also argue that the occupation of Ft Sumpter after South
Carolina seceded was illegal. The victors always get to make the laws
fit their victory. That is why Goering was in the dock and "Bomber"
Harris was not ... for the exact same crime. (waging unlimited war on
civilians)


More mindless what-about-itis...

--
Posted with my iPhone 7+.

To protect and serve
 

On Mon, 21 Aug 2017 12:31:17 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2017 09:21:01 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/20/17 11:33 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 22:01:27 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/20/17 9:58 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 18:33:02 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/20/17 3:56 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 14:53:16 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

Yup. states were a major part of the name. Sort of like the European
Union. Separate governments combing for a specific purpose.


The countries making up the European Union are free to vote themselves
out of it, ala Brexit. The states in the United States are not free to
vote themselves out of the American union, much as I joke about
California, et al, moving on.


Just exactly where is that defined in the Constitution?
They talk about how you get in but they are silent about how or even
if you can leave.


A number of states left...you recall what that got them?

An aggressive and unconstitutional invasion from the North?

You still duck the question. Where, in the constitution, does it say
the states can't secede? Where does it say the president has the
authority to declare war on them for it?
Just as a sanity check I read the constitution carefully again today
and it is silent on the issue.
It is interesting that Lincoln recognized the secession when it was
convenient to do so while denying it was actually valid. (Specifically
Article IV Section 3(1) and West Virginia)


You're the best "snickers man" on here.

You still have not told me where Lincoln got the constitutional
authority to invade the south.


Read Article II. The Constitution grants the POTUS the power to
unilaterally order military action in defense of the United States when
he determines that a foreign political entity poses a clear and present
danger to the safety and security of the United States.

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the
United States, and of the Militia of the several States..."

South Carolina initiated the shooting war against the United States by
its firing on Ft. Sumter. Lincoln, as commander in chief, was
Constitutionally obligated to respond and defend the fort.


You could also argue that the occupation of Ft Sumpter after South
Carolina seceded was illegal. The victors always get to make the laws
fit their victory. That is why Goering was in the dock and "Bomber"
Harris was not ... for the exact same crime. (waging unlimited war on
civilians)


More mindless what-about-itis...

I pose real questions, All you have is mindless insults.
Your intellectual curiosity is nil and you should be asking for your
money back for that college education. (assuming you actually went)

To protect and serve
 

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/20/17 11:33 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 22:01:27 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/20/17 9:58 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 18:33:02 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/20/17 3:56 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 14:53:16 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

Yup. states were a major part of the name. Sort of like the European
Union. Separate governments combing for a specific purpose.


The countries making up the European Union are free to vote themselves
out of it, ala Brexit. The states in the United States are not free to
vote themselves out of the American union, much as I joke about
California, et al, moving on.


Just exactly where is that defined in the Constitution?
They talk about how you get in but they are silent about how or even
if you can leave.


A number of states left...you recall what that got them?

An aggressive and unconstitutional invasion from the North?

You still duck the question. Where, in the constitution, does it say
the states can't secede? Where does it say the president has the
authority to declare war on them for it?
Just as a sanity check I read the constitution carefully again today
and it is silent on the issue.
It is interesting that Lincoln recognized the secession when it was
convenient to do so while denying it was actually valid. (Specifically
Article IV Section 3(1) and West Virginia)


You're the best "snickers man" on here.

You still have not told me where Lincoln got the constitutional
authority to invade the south.


Read Article II. The Constitution grants the POTUS the power to
unilaterally order military action in defense of the United States when
he determines that a foreign political entity poses a clear and present
danger to the safety and security of the United States.

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the
United States, and of the Militia of the several States..."

South Carolina initiated the shooting war against the United States by
its firing on Ft. Sumter. Lincoln, as commander in chief, was
Constitutionally obligated to respond and defend the fort.




That argument defines that the southern states legally seceded from the
USA. Otherwise, would not be a foreign political,power.

To protect and serve
 

On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 9:21:05 AM UTC-4, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/20/17 11:33 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 22:01:27 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/20/17 9:58 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 18:33:02 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/20/17 3:56 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 14:53:16 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

Yup. states were a major part of the name. Sort of like the European
Union. Separate governments combing for a specific purpose.


The countries making up the European Union are free to vote themselves
out of it, ala Brexit. The states in the United States are not free to
vote themselves out of the American union, much as I joke about
California, et al, moving on.


Just exactly where is that defined in the Constitution?
They talk about how you get in but they are silent about how or even
if you can leave.


A number of states left...you recall what that got them?

An aggressive and unconstitutional invasion from the North?

You still duck the question. Where, in the constitution, does it say
the states can't secede? Where does it say the president has the
authority to declare war on them for it?
Just as a sanity check I read the constitution carefully again today
and it is silent on the issue.
It is interesting that Lincoln recognized the secession when it was
convenient to do so while denying it was actually valid. (Specifically
Article IV Section 3(1) and West Virginia)


You're the best "snickers man" on here.

You still have not told me where Lincoln got the constitutional
authority to invade the south.


Read Article II. The Constitution grants the POTUS the power to
unilaterally order military action in defense of the United States when
he determines that a foreign political entity poses a clear and present
danger to the safety and security of the United States.

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the
United States, and of the Militia of the several States..."

South Carolina initiated the shooting war against the United States by
its firing on Ft. Sumter. Lincoln, as commander in chief, was
Constitutionally obligated to respond and defend the fort.

After succession, the Union was illegally occupying foreign land by staying in that fort. The CSA was expelling foreign forces.

To protect and serve
 

On 8/21/17 4:19 PM, Its Me wrote:
On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 9:21:05 AM UTC-4, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/20/17 11:33 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 22:01:27 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/20/17 9:58 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 18:33:02 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/20/17 3:56 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 14:53:16 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

Yup. states were a major part of the name. Sort of like the European
Union. Separate governments combing for a specific purpose.


The countries making up the European Union are free to vote themselves
out of it, ala Brexit. The states in the United States are not free to
vote themselves out of the American union, much as I joke about
California, et al, moving on.


Just exactly where is that defined in the Constitution?
They talk about how you get in but they are silent about how or even
if you can leave.


A number of states left...you recall what that got them?

An aggressive and unconstitutional invasion from the North?

You still duck the question. Where, in the constitution, does it say
the states can't secede? Where does it say the president has the
authority to declare war on them for it?
Just as a sanity check I read the constitution carefully again today
and it is silent on the issue.
It is interesting that Lincoln recognized the secession when it was
convenient to do so while denying it was actually valid. (Specifically
Article IV Section 3(1) and West Virginia)


You're the best "snickers man" on here.

You still have not told me where Lincoln got the constitutional
authority to invade the south.


Read Article II. The Constitution grants the POTUS the power to
unilaterally order military action in defense of the United States when
he determines that a foreign political entity poses a clear and present
danger to the safety and security of the United States.

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the
United States, and of the Militia of the several States..."

South Carolina initiated the shooting war against the United States by
its firing on Ft. Sumter. Lincoln, as commander in chief, was
Constitutionally obligated to respond and defend the fort.

After succession, the Union was illegally occupying foreign land by staying in that fort. The CSA was expelling foreign forces.



The Confederacy was not recognized as a legitimate government by anyone.
The south failed to achieve diplomatic recognition by even a single
foreign government. Lincoln's compassion more or less set the tone for
the south to rebuild. Some loyalists in the north would have preferred
to see it burned to the ground, its senior leaders and field grade
officers executed, and the farms and factories of the supporters of the
confederacy turned over to the former slaves who worked them.

To protect and serve
 

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/21/17 4:19 PM, Its Me wrote:
On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 9:21:05 AM UTC-4, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/20/17 11:33 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 22:01:27 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/20/17 9:58 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 18:33:02 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/20/17 3:56 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 14:53:16 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

Yup. states were a major part of the name. Sort of like the European
Union. Separate governments combing for a specific purpose.


The countries making up the European Union are free to vote themselves
out of it, ala Brexit. The states in the United States are not free to
vote themselves out of the American union, much as I joke about
California, et al, moving on.


Just exactly where is that defined in the Constitution?
They talk about how you get in but they are silent about how or even
if you can leave.


A number of states left...you recall what that got them?

An aggressive and unconstitutional invasion from the North?

You still duck the question. Where, in the constitution, does it say
the states can't secede? Where does it say the president has the
authority to declare war on them for it?
Just as a sanity check I read the constitution carefully again today
and it is silent on the issue.
It is interesting that Lincoln recognized the secession when it was
convenient to do so while denying it was actually valid. (Specifically
Article IV Section 3(1) and West Virginia)


You're the best "snickers man" on here.

You still have not told me where Lincoln got the constitutional
authority to invade the south.


Read Article II. The Constitution grants the POTUS the power to
unilaterally order military action in defense of the United States when
he determines that a foreign political entity poses a clear and present
danger to the safety and security of the United States.

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the
United States, and of the Militia of the several States..."

South Carolina initiated the shooting war against the United States by
its firing on Ft. Sumter. Lincoln, as commander in chief, was
Constitutionally obligated to respond and defend the fort.

After succession, the Union was illegally occupying foreign land by
staying in that fort. The CSA was expelling foreign forces.



The Confederacy was not recognized as a legitimate government by anyone.
The south failed to achieve diplomatic recognition by even a single
foreign government. Lincoln's compassion more or less set the tone for
the south to rebuild. Some loyalists in the north would have preferred
to see it burned to the ground, its senior leaders and field grade
officers executed, and the farms and factories of the supporters of the
confederacy turned over to the former slaves who worked them.


Was recognized by Lincoln by attacking as a foreign power. And those
loyalists killed Lincoln and went about burning it to the ground and
stealing everything left.