Does anybody on this forum still love america?

[ironfoot]

I do. I suspect most other readers do too. But threads of late seem to be about dismantling a country that has provided more freedom and prosperity to it's people than at any other time in history. For those who do love America, you might enjoy this:



http://www.gunblast.com/Reagan_July4th.htm

[Shorty]

I'd say that even our most unreconstructed rebels love America.  They just would like it to look more like America in 1861, or 1840, or 1820. or 1791.  :roll:
Take your pick, events in those years lead up to the final resolution in 1865 that set up America to be what it has become today.

[Big Blue]

I don't think it's a matter of not loving America. Too many good southern boys have laid down their lives in defense of America since 1865 to deny that they love their country. They never took up arms against their country, the government of that country took up arms against them. How far would you allow the Constitution to be perverted before you'd cry foul and try to protect it and your rights? Would you consider yourself disloyal because you opposed people forcing un-Constitutional change on you?
Don

[threepdr]

I had many ancestors who were in the CS Army during the CW.  We can only suspect what the motivations of the average soldier were,  but I think it was a need to protect home and country, to support friends/relatives, or just because. It probably was not explicitly to preserve slavery.

Big Blue wrote: "How far would you allow the Constitution to be perverted before you'd cry foul and try to protect it and your rights?"

However, The men who propelled the South into war were driven by the financial need to preserve slavery as an institution.  What other "State's Right" was threatened by the election of A.Lincoln?  Other than Slavery and the laws related to it, what Constitutional rights were threatened by the Federal Government?

If you want to read what the men who led one state to secession had to say about thier reasons, go to this link.  It is filled with concerns about the presrevation of Slavery:
http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/smithwr/smith.html#p129

Big Blue Wrote: "They never took up arms against their country, the government of that country took up arms against them."

You have to remember that the Southern States started raising troops long before the north did.  Lincoln did not call for the first 75,000 volunteers until after US troops had been attacked in Charleston Harbor.  The South fired the first shots and turned secession movement into war.

[BrianMcCandliss]

You'll have to define "America" first.

If you mean "America" the continent-- well there are three of them: North, South and Central. I don't see why you'd love a piece of land.

If you mean the "United States of America" as the union proper, that ceased to exist in 1861, since that union existed under a federal Constitution-- NOT a national one. In that, every individual state was a country-- you were a citizen of that state, not a "United States Citizen." And that state, for all purposes, WAS your "country."


If you mean the so-called "America" that has existed since, as the dictatorial empire run by corporate special-interests and mob-rule democracy-- like we have today, with its deficits approaching FOURTEEN FIGURES-- and mass-bureacracy controlling every decision made-- well that sounds like a mix between anarchy and tyranny, and only fools love that.

Again, loving one's "country" isn't necessarily a good thing-- if that country is incompatible with liberty. No one loved Germany more than Hitler.

Some would do well to study some REAL history, not the candy-coated propaganda spoon-fed by the Orwellian school-system.

[BrianMcCandliss]

I had many ancestors who were in the CS Army during the CW.  We can only suspect what the motivations of the average soldier were,  but I think it was a need to protect home and country, to support friends/relatives, or just because. It probably was not explicitly to preserve slavery.

Big Blue wrote: "How far would you allow the Constitution to be perverted before you'd cry foul and try to protect it and your rights?"

However, The men who propelled the South into war were driven by the financial need to preserve slavery as an institution.  What other "State's Right" was threatened by the election of A.Lincoln?  Other than Slavery and the laws related to it, what Constitutional rights were threatened by the Federal Government?

The tariff acts for one; some of the southern states were being exploited by majority-interests in the north, from trading freely on their own terms with other nations. In fact, Fort Sumter had long ceased to exist as a fort-- and was in fact now a collection-house for these duties, taxes and tariffs!

However, the states didn't NEED a "valid reason" to secede, being sovereign nations; they needed no permission from any congress or anyone else, other than their own citizenry.  And obviously, they were right to do it-- this sovereignty was obviously being threatened. In fact, Lincoln declared war on their sovereignty in his First Inaugural Address by claiming the states as property of the union-- just like Hussein declared war on Kuwait by claiming it as property of Iraq.
The remainder was simply an invasion.

[/quote]
Big Blue Wrote: "They never took up arms against their country, the government of that country took up arms against them."

You have to remember that the Southern States started raising troops long before the north did.  Lincoln did not call for the first 75,000 volunteers until after US troops had been attacked in Charleston Harbor.  The South fired the first shots and turned secession movement into war.[/quote]

Firing first in self-defense is not an act of war-- the initial offense is. Lincoln deliberately invaded the south's territory under false claim of legal right against states which international law recognized as sovereign nations.
From The Hampton Roads Peace Conference:

it should be recalled that on April 4, 1861, before the start of the war on April 12, the Secession Convention in Virginia, which had convened in February of 1861, sent a delegate to visit President Lincoln in the White House to discuss the results of the action recently taken in Virginia. When the State of Virginia originally voted on its ratification ordinance approving the U.S. Constitution, it contained a specific clause protecting their right to secede in the future. The delegate was Colonel John B. Baldwin, who was a strong opponent of secession by Virginia, although he recognized the right. His message communicated privately to the president on April 4, was that the convention had voted not to secede if President Lincoln would issue a written pledge to refrain from the use of force in order to get the seceded states back into the Union. President Lincoln told Colonel Baldwin that it was four days too late now to take that action. Unknown to all except a few insiders of the administration, meaning that members of the Congress did not know, the president had already issued secret orders on April 1, to send a fleet of ships to Fort Sumter in order to provoke the South into firing the first shot in order to start the war.

As for raising troops, the Union already had an army and a navy-- as clearly was sanctioned under the Constitution-- the South didn't. As sovereign nations, they had every right to raise such-- and they were right to do it, obviously-- their only mistake was acting too late, and too leniently against a ruthless enemy. They had done everything by the book- while Lincoln BURNED the book and wrote a new one.

The issue comes down the simple fact, that the states were sovereign nations under international law-- ever since 1783. End of story.

[WNY_Whitetailer]

Ummm...I still love America...I know that you meant The USA when you said America.  I didn't have to try and make myself seem smarter than another.

[BrianMcCandliss]

Better smarter than dumber.

Consider the following:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag
  of the United States of America;
  And to the republic for which it stands:
   One nation, under God, indivisible
   With liberty and justice for all."

Every grade-school child is forced to face the flag and salute, and recite these words first thing every day, 180 days/year, for 6 years.
They don't even know what it means, but they're literally indoctrinated with it-- before they have a CHANCE to know what it means.

However did the Founding Fathers write this pledge? Or the Framers and ratifiers of the Constitution?

No, these words were written by a socialist named Francis Bellamy in 1891-- well AFTER the Civil War. He believed that people need to be "trained" to be obediant citizens.

However consider the lines:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag   of the United States of America;   And to the republic for which it stands"

How can a CHILD pledge allegiance to ANYTHING? Why not Pokemon while they're at it?

   "One nation"

This is a LIE; the USA was NOT a nation, since the Constitution was not a national document-- nor were any of the documents before it.

 "under God"

Nor is the Constitution a THEOCRATIC document. In fact, the First Amendment specifically PRECLUDES a theocratic form of government-- as does Article IV, less specifically.

"indivisible"

This goes to the "nation" thing; if it's not a nation, then it's not indivisible.

   "With liberty and justice for all"

Pretty ironic that kids are FORCED to say THAT-- after being CONSCRIPTED into government-run schools at federal gunpoint!

So of course the question "who loves America?" is a loaded question-- basically saying that anyone has a dirty mind who isn't BRAINWASHED.

"Patriotism is often the last refuge of a scoundrel."

[olbiffer]

Brian, this is not meant to start anything, but I gotta ask. If this is the way you truly think and feel about America, why do you live here?

[ShadowMover]

Brian, this is not meant to start anything, but I gotta ask. If this is the way you truly think and feel about America, why do you live here?

I just have to say this:  A lot of people born here are not too happy about the direction this country is going. Just because you have a legitimate complaint about our nation isn't a reason to question why we live here. Maybe if some of the people on the Titanic had questioned the Captain, they might have had a good trip. Unlike the Titanic's passengers we ARE entitled to bitch about the conditions, and the operation of the country. That's my $.02 worth.

[WNY_Whitetailer]

Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing...

[ironfoot]

You'll have to define "America" first.

It seemed pretty obvious from the Regan quote:
"July Fourth is the birthday of our nation. I believed
as a boy, and believe even more today, that it is the birthday of the
greatest nation on earth."

Thought you would have known, since you state you are:
"Better smarter than dumber."

[ironfoot]

I don't think it's a matter of not loving America. Too many good southern boys have laid down their lives in defense of America since 1865 to deny that they love their country.
Don

Thank God for those southern boys!

[BrianMcCandliss]

You'll have to define "America" first.

It seemed pretty obvious from the Regan quote:
"July Fourth is the birthday of our nation. I believed
as a boy, and believe even more today, that it is the birthday of the
greatest nation on earth."

Thought you would have known, since you state you are:
"Better smarter than dumber."

Are you serious? Do you believe everything that your officials tell you?

On July 4, 1776, the Founders did not declare a nation; they declared 13 "Free and Independent States."

You might want to get your facts straight, before implying that others are stupid-- just on the basis of some brainwashing quotes by a politician.

Why not cite me the Pledge of Allegiance next? Geez.

[BrianMcCandliss]

Brian, this is not meant to start anything, but I gotta ask. If this is the way you truly think and feel about America, why do you live here?

Because I'm right. See below:

Brian, this is not meant to start anything, but I gotta ask. If this is the way you truly think and feel about America, why do you live here?

I just have to say this:  A lot of people born here are not too happy about the direction this country is going. Just because you have a legitimate complaint about our nation isn't a reason to question why we live here. Maybe if some of the people on the Titanic had questioned the Captain, they might have had a good trip. Unlike the Titanic's passengers we ARE entitled to bitch about the conditions, and the operation of the country. That's my $.02 worth.

Actually if the Titanic was hijacked by pirates, then the passengers would DEFINITELY have a right to do something in order to take back control; they would be foolish to simply abandon ship in the middle of the ocean.

And that's EXACTLY what's happened here-- the states were illegally hijacked by dictators and corporate pirates. I'm just trying to take it BACK.

The states originally declared independence- SEPARATELY AND INDIVIDUALLY--  in order to gain their freedom against a corrupt empire.
And they fought a bloody revolution in order to gain it; they didn't just leave.

However, we now find that the states have been taken over by a corrupt empire from within; logically, therefore, there's no real alternative but to re-take the ship.

So when you ask me why I live here-- why not ask that of Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, or the other Founders?  They didn't even have any written legal claim against the British crown; the colonies clearly belonged to mother England, by law. As such, they appealed to Providence in order to take it by force-- which they openly declared, in accordance with all laws.

I, on the other hand, have a legitimate, written, legal claim to a land of free and independent states-- a claim which was illegally violated by a tyrannical invasion, and is perpetuated by continued military occupation.
 
Hence, the question of why I live here, isn't just insipid- it's insulting.

[BrianMcCandliss]

[repeat post]

[BrianMcCandliss]

I don't think it's a matter of not loving America. Too many good southern boys have laid down their lives in defense of America since 1865 to deny that they love their country.
Don

Thank God for those southern boys!

Too bad the US was never ATTACKED in its entire history.

The only exceptions are:

1) the War if 1812-- which ironically resulted in several states considering secession because the other states had provoked it; and

2) WWII, which likewise involved FDR deliberately and covertly attacking both the Germans and Japanese long before-- and which likewise resulted entirely from US involvement in WWI, as well as federalization of the US economy.

And so here the US wasn't attacked, so much as retalliated against-- which really doesn't count.

The only invader that the southerners ever legitimately died defending against, was Lincoln.

In contrast, if the states had remained sovereign, then the states would have refused to enter into foreign skirmishes-- while economy would have remained in the hands of the individual states. As such, the 20th century would have been a lot less bloody.

There's just no such thing as good statism-- particularly when it's built on lies (which it always is).

[ironfoot]

You'll have to define "America" first.

It seemed pretty obvious from the Regan quote:
"July Fourth is the birthday of our nation. I believed
as a boy, and believe even more today, that it is the birthday of the
greatest nation on earth."

Thought you would have known, since you state you are:
"Better smarter than dumber."

Are you serious? Do you believe everything that your officials tell you?

On July 4, 1776, the Founders did not declare a nation; they declared 13 "Free and Independent States."

You might want to get your facts straight, before implying that others are stupid-- just on the basis of some brainwashing quotes by a politician.

Why not cite me the Pledge of Allegiance next? Geez.

You are changing the subject.
First you claimed ignorance as to the definition of "America" I used in my original post.
I pointed out that the original post contained a quote from President Reagan that made the answer obvious.
Then you attacked Reagan's definition.
So you changed your criticism from not comprehending the definition, to not agreeing with it.
All the while you brag about being smart.
In a prior post you bragged about being rich, so maybe you think you can buy the privilege of being inconsistent.

[rock-steady]

The South was right. The Federals won an illegal war and wrote the history books. That pretty much sums it up. Endless back and forth argueing will never change anyones mind on either side. Gotta go and salute my 3rd National flag. See you.

[BrianMcCandliss]

You'll have to define "America" first.

It seemed pretty obvious from the Regan quote:
"July Fourth is the birthday of our nation. I believed
as a boy, and believe even more today, that it is the birthday of the
greatest nation on earth."

Thought you would have known, since you state you are:
"Better smarter than dumber."

Are you serious? Do you believe everything that your officials tell you?

On July 4, 1776, the Founders did not declare a nation; they declared 13 "Free and Independent States."

You might want to get your facts straight, before implying that others are stupid-- just on the basis of some brainwashing quotes by a politician.

Why not cite me the Pledge of Allegiance next? Geez.

You are changing the subject.
First you claimed ignorance as to the definition of "America" I used in my original post.

No, I challenged you to define a subjective term. "America" is a continent, and there are two or three of them-- North, South and Central; hence, I wasn't "ignoring" ANYTHING.
"America," in the sense of "The United States of America," is likewise not a nation-- since every state is a sovereign nation under the law.
Hence, if you're talking about America as a nation, then you're talking about a falsehood.

I pointed out that the original post contained a quote from President Reagan that made the answer obvious.
Then you attacked Reagan's definition.
So you changed your criticism from not comprehending the definition, to not agreeing with it.

No, challenged your definition-- and then countered the answer to that challenge.

It's called "debate--" look into it.

All the while you brag about being smart.

 I simply apply logic to facts in order to arrive at conclusions. Again, it's called "debate."

In a prior post you bragged about being rich, so maybe you think you can buy the privilege of being inconsistent.

I wouldn't know, since I'm never inconsistent.

[BrianMcCandliss]

The South was right. The Federals won an illegal war and wrote the history books. That pretty much sums it up. Endless back and forth argueing will never change anyones mind on either side.

But if we can prove it here, we can prove it at law-- and back win the sovereignty of the states.

[ironfoot]

You'll have to define "America" first.

It seemed pretty obvious from the Regan quote:
"July Fourth is the birthday of our nation. I believed
as a boy, and believe even more today, that it is the birthday of the
greatest nation on earth."

Thought you would have known, since you state you are:
"Better smarter than dumber."

Are you serious? Do you believe everything that your officials tell you?

On July 4, 1776, the Founders did not declare a nation; they declared 13 "Free and Independent States."

They declard "united" states.

You might want to get your facts straight, before implying that others are stupid-- just on the basis of some brainwashing quotes by a politician.

Why not cite me the Pledge of Allegiance next? Geez.

You are changing the subject.
First you claimed ignorance as to the definition of "America" I used in my original post.

No, I challenged you to define a subjective term. "America" is a continent, and there are two or three of them-- North, South and Central; hence, I wasn't "ignoring" ANYTHING.
"America," in the sense of "The United States of America," is likewise not a nation-- since every state is a sovereign nation under the law.
Hence, if you're talking about America as a nation, then you're talking about a falsehood.

The definition of "America" was obvious from the Reagan quote. how many times do things have to be spelled out for You?

I pointed out that the original post contained a quote from President Reagan that made the answer obvious.
Then you attacked Reagan's definition.
So you changed your criticism from not comprehending the definition, to not agreeing with it.

No, challenged your definition-- and then countered the answer to that challenge.

It wasn't my definition, it was Reagan's quote.
It's called "debate--" look into it.

So now you are debating Reagan?

All the while you brag about being smart.

In a prior post you bragged about being rich, so maybe you think you can buy the privilege of being inconsistent.

I wouldn't know, since I'm never inconsistent.

You do appear to me to be consistently anti-American.

[BrianMcCandliss]

You do appear to me to be consistently anti-American.

No-- the USA was founded on the principle of sovereign states, which are currently under illegal occupation by an inside coup. If you support that, YOU'RE the traitor-- not me.
The only "revolution" in the Civil War-- was by the Lincoln administration.

Law-- any law-- is, by definition, defined by that law's original intent; are you claiming that the current administration, administers the Constitution's original intent? If so, let's see your proof. If not, you're simply pro-tyranny, advocating government can pervert the law's intent at whim via brute force and deception.

That's not exactly "government by consent of the governed;" consent not only requires the absence of force, but the absence of LIES-- ala INFORMED consent! It doesn't matter whether the people are coerced into compliance, or DECEIVED into it; either way, their decisions are only as free as the information upon which such are based.  When information is controlled, so are the decisions.

That's precisely why the recent rash of anti-Lincoln sentiment, coincides with the rise of the internet; since the Civil War, there has been an "unholy alliance" between the government and the pro-Lincoln media, which determined the fate of journalism into a species of pro-union acolytes. During the Civil War, tens of thousands of anti-Lincoln writers were silenced by him, while hundreds of papers were closed-- or handed over to his propagandists; likewise afterward, similar censorship-measures lingered to ensure continued totalitarian suppression of the truth, just like under any other tyrannical regime.

Eventually, the press became so pro-union, that any anti-union sentiment was eventually stigmatized, and denied publication, even when such would no longer be censored-- UNTIL the advent of the internet gave global voice to the common citizen, essentially bypassing this "uholy alliance" between empire and media.

[williamlayton]

Double whammy folks--sorry.
Blessings

[williamlayton]

I knew what was ment by America, though not explecitily correct, I felt no need to correct. If we are speaking too someone outside the confines of the USA then it might be necessary to be a little more explicit.
I think this is a little "overkill".
One must preface any thought about this conflict being "legal" with "I believe"- the determination and results have already been judged and the rest is history.
Seems to me that this is somewhat of a distraction to the conversation--for what benifit? I can only come to conclusions by the content of the conversation. Seems as though someone needs to take oxygen and find a better source of defining his intelligence to the general public or a whole lot of smoke for no purpose other than self gradification.
Blessings

[BrianMcCandliss]

I knew what was ment by America, though not explecitily correct, I felt no need to correct. If we are speaking too someone outside the confines of the USA then it might be necessary to be a little more explicit.
I think this is a little "overkill".
One must preface any thought about this conflict being "legal" with "I believe"- the determination and results have already been judged and the rest is history.

No, that's just it-- they HAVEN'T been "judged;" they've been SUPRESSED ever since the initial event. Tell me, when was this "judged" in any legal sense-- and in an accurate manner? One Nazi approving another, doesn't validate the Third Reich. Same with a Union-imperialist approving the US invasion of the Confederacy: judgment by a successful criminal, does not validate the crime; either it's legal, or it's NOT. Is that so hard?

I don't say "I believe," because it is not a statement of opinion, but of fact. If anyone can counter it, let's hear it. However Henry Jaffa and his cronies are the main defenders of Lincoln, and have been completely unable to present a SINGLE cogent argument regarding the sovereignty of the United States over the individual states.

Seems to me that this is somewhat of a distraction to the conversation--for what benifit? I can only come to conclusions by the content of the conversation. Seems as though someone needs to take oxygen and find a better source of defining his intelligence to the general public or a whole lot of smoke for no purpose other than self gradification.

That's quite a myopic view, since my purpose is to liberate the states from their illegal occupation, and re-establish recognized status as equal sovereign nations of the Earth-- just as any other nation.  

It's easily provable, that the US was only established among the states for the purpose of COLLECTIVE BARGAINING with the rest of the world, and civilized interaction between the states themselves-- as with ANY union; it was NOT intended to  deny or disparage the sovereignty of any given member!

Imagine if the UAW claimed the right to beat any members into submission from quitting it, or disobeying its dictates? That's exactly what the Civil War did with the seceding member-states!

Others and myself, have quite thoroughly proven that the US invasion of the South was illegal, and that the states are sovereign nations by original intent.

However I simply think these others, simply lack the guts to speak the inevitable conclusion, that if the states were sovereign, and if that sovereignty was never legally revoked, then they must REMAIN sovereign.
Pardon me for not being the coward that they are.

If you disagree they were originally sovereign under the Constitution, let's hear your arguments-- other than ad hominem rhetoric.

Otherwise tell me, by what LAW was state sovereignty ended, following the Civil War?
And likewise, how would this square with Lincoln's claim that they weren't sovereign BEFORE the war-- which was his SOLE basis for waging the bloody thing in the first place? Wouldn't this make him into a simple imperialist, tyrant and dictator, conquering peaceful sovereign nations by brute force? Don't we have a man on trial in Iraq for that very thing?

I think you've simply been brainwashed by your environment, and I challenge you to show a bit of independent thought other than parroting and supporting what you've been told.

[El Confederado]

Ok my turn.First, my ancestors were the first white men on this patch of land as a matter of fact we named it "America" after a map maker.Second, it is plain that Ironfoot is talking about the United States of America.
This being said, it is not a crime to question ones government( our Patriot forefathers questioned England and thus we became our own country), so to try and paint folks as unpatroitic because they are loyal to the Confederate States is alittle on the narrow sighted way of looking at things, dont y'all think?

[Daks]

Texas vs. White in 1868 - the Supreme Court declared unilateral secession illegal. Yelling about it won't do any good. Until the decision is overturned, it is the definitive statement on the legality of secession.

[BrianMcCandliss]

Second, it is plain that Ironfoot is talking about the United States of America.

But he's also doing so as a nation called "America," which is not proper; the union is not a nation, and never was. This is a lie invented by 19th-century revisionists, which was originally denied outright by the Founders and Framers, and the states themselves.
"America" is a continent, not a nation-- and there are TWO of them. Rather, every state was-- and remains-- a sovereign nation unto itself, bound only by its voluntary agreement in ratifying the Constitution.
Once we can agree on that simple, historical fact, then the rest will be history.

This being said, it is not a crime to question ones government( our Patriot forefathers questioned England and thus we became our own country), so to try and paint folks as unpatroitic because they are loyal to the Confederate States is alittle on the narrow sighted way of looking at things, dont y'all think?

Patriotism is sometimes the last refuge of a scoundrel, while truth is a defense of itself.  For example: as I said before, no one was more patriotic than Hitler. However Hitler is often cast as a scapegoat for socialism throughout the world, when in reality it began right here in the good ol' US of A.
As Pogo stated; "We has met the enemy, and they is US."

Likewise, like Hitler and the other socialist-dictators of the 20th centory, Lincoln jailed anyone who failed to support him-- even though they were telling the truth. However the suspension of habeas corpus, permitted censorship by rendering truth to be irrelevant.
In fact, as Dr. Thomas Dilorenzo explains here, the presses became controlled by the Republican party for more than 50 years after the Lincoln Administration.

In contrast, those who tell the truth, are clearly serving a higher power than any government-- the power of informed-consent of the governed, by which American governments are held to derive their just powers.
Hence, any interference by government with such information, is destructive to the rights of the people-- and is thus the people have the right to alter or abolish it.

So as far as patriotism goes, it's  unpatriotic to propagate such lies, though they may be popularly accepted at "truth" by those forcibly indoctrinated to them.

Rather, patriotism applies to the TRUE law, i.e. that every state is a sovereign nation-- not the United States as a whole. Thus, patriotism to one's home state-- and the independent sovereignty of that state, and all the others-- is the only TRUE patriotism. Everything else is a LIE.

[BrianMcCandliss]

Texas vs. White in 1868 - the Supreme Court declared unilateral secession illegal. Yelling about it won't do any good. Until the decision is overturned, it is the definitive statement on the legality of secession.

You might want to get a clue what you're talking aobut-- starting by studying something called "separation of powers" regarding the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court; they don't have the power to arbitrarily define policy, particularly regarding international boundaries-- regardless of how they may legislate from the bench on legal matters.

Texas v. White only pertained to debts incurred via Conferate war-bonds, nullifying their actionability; that doesn't mean that secession itself was illegal just because the Supreme Court said so.

Rather, if the states were sovereign nations, then the Supreme Court can bang their little gavels till doomsday, to no legal effect on that matter.

On the conrary, this matter simply became a "third rail" issue during the Civil War-- and definitely after it; no one dared utter the "S-word" of "sovereignty" as applied to the states; anyone who did, would be ruined-- or worse.
That's otherwise known as a "reign of terror."

The US invasion of the states could never be a legal act, since the states simply did NOT intend to surrender their individual soveriegnty to become a single nation. EVER.

Corrupt judges are nothing new; Hitler had them, Stalin had them, Henry VIII had them; heck, every corrupt nation had them, and Salmon P. Chase was no exception;  that doesn't make everything they say "legal," particularly when they don't even have that type of power.

Heck, Chase had the BANK named after him, because of the way that he crushed economic freedom as Lincoln's Treasury-Secretary, acting as lackey for his partner-in-crime Jay Cooke: together they hustled untold millions in underwriting the Civil War debt, and creating the national bank mafia.

Rather, Texas v. White, only applied to matters-of-law-- not international policy like state sovereignty. That's a matter of HISTORY-- specifically original intent of the states themselves.

And that's not a matter for the courts-- but for the PEOPLE.

So then, we must focus on the real history regarding this intent by the states-- not the talking puppet of the tyrant himself, which Chase certainly was.