Union pride thread?

Union pride thread?

Union pride thread.

California reporting in.

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=uZmxZThb084
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Right to work is a rip off.

But seriously - fuck California. Fuck democrats. Fuck progressives. Fuck liberals.

FUCK YOU OP.

war criminal faggot

Mad because he knew how to fight a war after you started it traitor?

SHALL

Funny, just finished reading The Killer Angels earlier today during my snow day.

Death to the Union and all who stand for it.

We will hang every last Northerner and Northern shill from Willow trees.

Now that's some God(s and Generals)-tier reading

U Mad?

109th New York reporting in. Burnside's Men hold the line.

Thread theme: m.youtube.com/watch?v=uZmxZThb084

why don't they make uniforms like these anymore?

>Killed 600,000 white men.
>To free the precious negroes.

In the 'land of Libtards" this is called pride.

>Union states proud of anything other than shilling for Bernie
>California reporting in
>Canadian flag proxy?
>mfw California wasn't significant in the Civil War

>war criminal
>notoriously made a point to avoid civilian causalities and looting and explicitly focused on destroying infrastructure that supported the war effort
>war criminal
Right, and NATO invaded Libya.

>California
>proud of something
>posting as a canadian

Daily reminder that if you actually believe Texas v White the entire war was blatantly unconstitutional

Sherman was a douchebag. Pillaged civvie targets in his own country essentially.

Didn't WTS like shoot a bunch of plantation owners too tho?

Don't know much about him honestly, I think a book on his southern campaign is next up for me after I finish Battle Cry of Freedom.

DUDE, it's the Current Year! The North has nothing to be proud of, save for (((that fifth column))) that takes pride in establishing the conditions that will soon lead to the destruction of our nation.

First New Jersey Brigade here. Actually, Texas v. White clearly outlines that the SECESSION was unconstitutional, and therefore the federal government acted appropriately in assembling an army to suppress the rebellion, just as it did during the Whiskey Rebellion.

>War criminals declared their own crimes to be legal.

Color me shocked.

>assmad traitors that think their shitty, illegitimate nation was worth saving
Keep preaching your "Lost Cause", I'm sure somebody will hear you.

The governments the feds sent up were not republican and therefore unconstitutional
There is a reason radical republicans were against texas v white

...

>Didn't WTS like shoot a bunch of plantation owners too tho?
Other than the ones among the enemy troops, not to my knowledge.

>people actually thinking our Union is worth preserving
The Feds have done more to erode our freedom than any foreign power ever could

Protip: States can leave the Union whenever the fuck they want. Just stop being states. If you devolve into a territory you are no longer part of the Union.

Not according to Texas v White
Fun fact they actually had to pretend the Articles of Confederation were still a valid legal document

We were only talking about whether the war itself was *constitutional*, not anything else. The Supreme Court is vested with the final word on what is or is not in conformance with the constitution. And let us not forget that the first shots of the war were fired by the Confederates at Union troops.
The case actually didn't touch on that issue. It just said that the government of Texas, however constituted, retained ownership of the treasury bonds it had received from the federal government before the war, and that any sale of them by the secessionist government was null and void.

>The case actually didn't touch on that issue.
but it was the logical conclusion

>Not according to Texas v White
The Confederacy never declared themselves territories. They declared themselves a separate country. Neither states nor territories have the ability to do that unilaterally.

In order to leave this country you either need to be a territory granted independence by Congress or a state wherein the Constitution is amended to no longer apply.

Texas v White was right in its conclusions. The Constitution being the supreme law of the land means that outside of Constitutional amendment to make a land that comes under the Constitution no longer the supreme law of that land or Congress's power from the Property Clause to define how much, if any, of the Constitution applies to a particular area of land outside the Union, the Constitution IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, making that land the USA, period, due to no government on that land being over the constitution.

>Neither states nor territories have the ability to do that unilaterally.
citation needed
>The Constitution being the supreme law of the land
According to Texas v White the Articles of Confederation are still the supreme law of the land

The actions of Congress in the Reconstuction were never actually addressed by the court. While they came close in Ex parte McCardle and Ex parte Yerger, by the time there were any controversies left, the governments of the former Confederate states had already been reconstituted.
No, the SC merely said that the wording of the AoC could be used to guide an understanding of the Constitution that replaced it.

And as for the citation:
>When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.
Texas v. White (1869)

>citation needed
What part of supreme law of the land?

How do you have a country on the land of another country?

>According to Texas v White the Articles of Confederation
We threw that shit out in the 1788

?What part of supreme law of the land don't you understand?*
Fix'd

I apparently can't type.

But the union was not perpetual
2 states did not immediately join the new union >We threw that shit out in the 1788
It still made it into the decision

>Union pride thread
>California

Pure Michigan, Land of Custer reporting in.

Sorry we didn't fight on the right side.

The court took the phrase to mean that once a state joins, there is no way out except by the assent of Congress, just as there is no way in except by the assent of Congress. Decisions about the extent of the United States and the area where its laws are applicable are under the exclusive competence of the federal government.

This subject has literally been debated to death and then some. See Mississippi v. Johnson, Georgia v. Stanton, United States v. Klein, Virginia v. West Virginia, and Ex parte Garland, as well as the other cases discussed above. The secession was illegal, the acts of the federal government to suppress the insurrection were legal, and the acts of military reconstruction were legal. The CSA fought the law, and the law won. GET OVER IT.

Those who do not learn from History are doomed to repeat that class. Study up.

Also, you must be 18+ to post on this site.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

somebody lost the war

And they're still mad about it a century and a half later.

>Snow day
Where are you from, fellow Burger? Virginia fag here