Confederate flags again

[shunyadragon]

By doing nothing for 10 months, the North tacitly agreed.

The break up of Czechoslovakia was negotiated and agreed, and legal under international law. The secession of the South was not negotiated nor agreed to by both parties.

Source: https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199796953/obo-9780199796953-0044.xml

Introduction

© Copyright Original Source

[Bill the Cat]

[shunyadragon]

Concerning the separation of Czech Republic and Slovakia

[shunyadragon]

You did take a position:

"Actually, yes we are. The Confederate States of America was a separate nation once they seceded from the USA. Secession was not illegal until after the Civil War began."

Secession only takes place after the fact. The Civil was just a consequence, after the South fired on and captured Fort Sumter. Until then the South took no action to enforce their secession.

Your backing away from your original position, but it is a fact of history and International Law that secession is illegal unless both parties are in an agreement.

The Confederate Battle flag of Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia is indeed a symbol of illegal Confederate secession and carried into battle in front of his troops from 1861 to 1865.

[shunyadragon]

By doing nothing for 10 months, the North tacitly agreed.

There never was any tacitly (?) agreement.

[Bill the Cat]

Your backing away from your original position,

No I am not. The Constitution was silent on it. So until it was decided, it was legal.

but it is a fact of history and International Law that secession is illegal unless both parties are in an agreement.

False. Eritrea, Bangladesh, South Sudan, Panama, Bangladesh, and a host of other nations seceded without permission, and had to fight to maintain their independence.

[shunyadragon]

No I am not. The Constitution was silent on it. So until it was decided, it was legal.

Your failing to respond to my references, back taking the hard line you had before.

In come countries, which are federal confederations there is a provision for secession, but not in the US Constitution. This the legal way to secede.




False. Eritrea, Bangladesh, South Sudan, Panama, Bangladesh, and a host of other nations seceded without permission, and had to fight to maintain their independence.[/QUOTE]

That did not make it legal by international law.

[shunyadragon]

No I am not. The Constitution was silent on it. So until it was decided, it was legal.

Your failing to respond to my references, and now back taking the hard line you had before.

In some countries, which are federal confederations there is a provision for secession, but not in the US Constitution. This the legal way to secede.

False. Eritrea, Bangladesh, South Sudan, Panama, Bangladesh, and a host of other nations seceded without permission, and had to fight to maintain their independence.

The success or failure of forced secession does not make it legal by international law. The secession of Panama from Columbia was forced by the USA, and not legal by international law.I gave the source from the Oxford University, which you choose to ignore.

[Bill the Cat]

Your failing to respond to my references, back taking the hard line you had before.

Because you are obviously ignorant on how our legal system works. When the Constitution is silent on a matter, it can not be said to be illegal or unconstitutional until the Judicial Branch rules it so.

In some countries, which are federal confederations there is a provision for secession, but not in the US Constitution. This the legal way to secede.

And the ones I listed seceded via bloodshed.

That did not make it legal by international law.

International Law is only binding due to treaties and standards. Again, irrelevant to those nations I listed.

The secession of Panama from Columbia was forced by the USA, and not legal by international law.

No it wasn't. The US did not force the Panamanians to rebel.

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=Bill the Cat;701984]Because you are obviously ignorant on how our legal system works. When the Constitution is silent on a matter, it can not be said to be illegal or unconstitutional until the Judicial Branch rules it so.



And the ones I listed seceded via bloodshed.




International Law is only binding due to treaties and standards. Again, irrelevant to those nations I listed.

No it wasn't. The US did not force the Panamanians to rebel.

Yes they did!

[shunyadragon]

Because you are obviously ignorant on how our legal system works. When the Constitution is silent on a matter, it can not be said to be illegal or unconstitutional until the Judicial Branch rules it so.



And the ones I listed seceded via bloodshed.

I cited the International Law and legal position. It did not have to be in a treaty nor whether the judicial branch says it is. In fact the judicial branch of the government has no say in international law. Being achieved by bloodshed only translates to achieved by bloodshed and does not make it legal by international law.

International Law is only binding due to treaties and standards. Again, irrelevant to those nations I listed.

By the Oxford reference I cited this is absolutely false. You have cited nothing, but opinion.

As cited the United States forced the secession of Panama from Colombia by the threat of force of arms.

[Bill the Cat]

I cited the International Law and legal position.

International Law is only binding if the nations agree to it.

It did not have to be in a treaty nor whether the judicial branch says it is. In fact the judicial branch of the government has no say in international law. Being achieved by bloodshed only translates to achieved by bloodshed and does not make it legal by international law.

And International Law does not trump a sovereign nation's judiciary unless it lets them. That's a fact you lefties just don't get.

By the Oxford reference I cited this is absolutely false.

and creates a presumption against its effectiveness and in favor of the territorial integrity of the parent state."


Disfavors is not "illegal", Frank.

You have cited nothing, but opinion.

And your cite doesn't even support your "secession is illegal" nonsense.

As cited the United States forced the secession of Panama from Colombia by the threat of force of arms.

No they didn't. The Panamanians were goaded into it by an French and American OWNED COMPANY, not the US. Reading is fundamental.

[shunyadragon]

and creates a presumption against its effectiveness and in favor of the territorial integrity of the parent state."


Disfavors is not "illegal", Frank.




And your cite doesn't even support your "secession is illegal" nonsense.



No they didn't. The Panamanians were goaded into it by an French and American OWNED COMPANY, not the US. Reading is fundamental.

The warship was a US warship. You have not responded to the sources cited, nor have you cited anything but your opinion.

Not a coherent response. Keep flying your Confederate flag with pride.

[Bill the Cat]

The warship was a US warship. You have not responded to the sources cited, nor have you cited anything but your opinion.

I cited a History Professor from UVA and YOUR OWN SOURCE!!! You incompetent boob!

Not a coherent response. Keep flying your Confederate flag with pride.

What part of "my people fought for the Union" are you failing to translate from my English into your moron?

[shunyadragon]

I cited a History Professor from UVA and YOUR OWN SOURCE!!! You incompetent boob

You are nit picking words to justify your agenda. You incompetent boob!

What part of "my people fought for the Union" are you failing to translate from my English into your moron?

Your words speak for your sentiments not your ancestors. Keep flying your Confederate flag with pride.