Fort Pillow and more.....

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
20,091
Reaction score
990
I'm not sure what you're arguing anymore... You're all over the place.
Ft. pillow,
confiscation law
covering several years
war crimes
opinions
case law
etc. etc.....

:shocked2:

If your goal is to confuse me, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.... :doh:
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
23,352
Reaction score
22,451
Location
Republic mo
It’s a complex machine, full of interlocking parts. No part stands alone. Any invasion and any confiscated property violated the basic right of the states and its citizens. If the states had no right to defend their borders and property because they did not have the right to withdraw then it was the federal resposblity to defend the rights of the citizens of those states. The only thing that could justify treating the people of succeeding states as enemies subject to contraband rules was the recognition of states as a free and independent country. And that makes it an illegal invasion and the people had the right to do what ever was nessicary to resist the invading force. The constitution can’t be set aside in order to defend and protect the constitution.
 
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
20,091
Reaction score
990
Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation states that the Union "shall be perpetual".

The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was to form a more perfect Union.
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
23,352
Reaction score
22,451
Location
Republic mo
Except before the establishment of a union of FREE and INDEPENDENT STATES, was the Declaration that opening statement was people have a right to sever political ties with another people and take there place among the free and independent states of the earth.
No state at any time surrendered its sovereignty. That’s why from 1776 to 1866 the united States was often written with a small u capital S.
 
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
20,091
Reaction score
990
You do realize that the context of "FREE and INDEPENDENT STATES," referred to the union being free from the king.....

Right?

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. ”” And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."


People misunderstand the usage of the word "state"
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
23,352
Reaction score
22,451
Location
Republic mo
I don’t think people have misunderstood it at all. United is small u , states is plural. That these united Colonies are, and of right ought to be Free and Independent States” not free and independent State.
And that “as Free and Independent States, they have the full power to...” again they, not one. They are acting in concert, they made an alliance.
Not one unified body but one confederacy of free and independent States ( little c ).
And at the top it lays out the basis of the whole movement.
”˜It becomes necessary for one people to desolve the political bands which have connected them with another and assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitlement them”
A free people are not free if they are unable to make political connections or sever those connection as needed to serve the needs of that political entity. The eleven Free and Independent States of the Confederacy severed political ties with the rest of the states, an act in accordance with the laws of nature.
Lincoln de facto recognized them as a free and independent confederacy of states. He ”˜Blockaded’ the southern ports, you do blockad your own ports. He did not charge the blockad runners with smuggling, nor the commerce raider with piracy. Most of the crews of the raiders were foreign born. However he de facto recognized marquee and reprisals powers of the Confederacy.
You do realize don’t you they were claiming freedom from the central government in Washington. Substitute King in your post and you will note it is the same. After the war the newly conquered areas were denied their rights and freedom the constitution was set up to protect, no longer did they have representation in government but were now reduced to vassalage.
 
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
20,091
Reaction score
990
The declaration of independence did not grant us our freedom. The treaty of Paris did.

The South could not simply secede and become an independent nation just because to wanted to.
International law did not permit it.

The confederacy of the civil war was illegitimate under international law. As was slavery.

The South would not have survived for very long internationally.

In order for the south to gain its independence internationally it would have needed to abolish slavery.
 
Joined
May 6, 2014
Messages
15,546
Reaction score
10,879
Colorado Clyde said:
The declaration of independence did not grant us our freedom. The treaty of Paris did.

Absolutely correct.

Colorado Clyde said:
The South could not simply secede and become an independent nation just because to wanted to.
International law did not permit it.

What International Law did not permit the South from seceding?

Colorado Clyde said:
The confederacy of the civil war was illegitimate under international law. As was slavery..

Again, what International Law made the Confederacy illegitimate?

Be careful, you have to give examples where the Federal Government formally gave up sovereignty in International Treaties, before you can claim International Law did such things.

Also, if the South was Illegal or Illegitimate due to slavery, then by your own argument, so was the U.S. Government. After all, the LAST State to go Free was DELAWARE and that state certainly wasn't in the South and it didn't go free until AFTER the War Between the States.

Gus
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2006
Messages
3,704
Reaction score
572
Various treaties outlawed the international slave trade, not slavery itself. Prior to the ACW, both Britain and the US sent naval ships to the coast of Africa to help suppress smuggling by slave ships.
Slavery was hardly ended by the war. In the western hemisphere, it was not completey made illegal for over 20 years after the ACW - Cuba made it illegal in 1886 and Brazil two years later in 1888. Look up os Confederados for information on former Confederate officers who migrated to Brazil after the war.
 

54ball

62 Cal.
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
2,831
Reaction score
306
Colorado Clyde said:
The declaration of independence did not grant us our freedom. The treaty of Paris did.

The South could not simply secede and become an independent nation just because to wanted to.
International law did not permit it.

The confederacy of the civil war was illegitimate under international law. As was slavery.

The South would not have survived for very long internationally.

In order for the south to gain its independence internationally it would have needed to abolish slavery.

This is a debatable 21st view applied to the 19th Century.

The Yankees may have worn blue uniforms but they did not wear blue helmets.

Many international states of that era still had chattel slavery.
Many states still have slavery in one form or another today.

One of the reasons for the invasion of the North in 1863 was the possible recondition by Britain. Britain sympathized with the Confederacy. This was mainly over economic issues. The South was hoping for a Saratoga type victory and she almost got it.

The Confederacy was given a political gift by Lincoln with the Emaciation Proclamation. It became apparent by 1863 that the South could gain international recognition and thus her independence by sacrificing the institution of slavery.

This issue did come up in the Confederate Congress and immediately the Deep South Confederate states threatened to secede from the Confederacy.

Your point of international recognition (Britain and France) is correct but I disagree about International Law vs National Sovereignty in the aspect of the existence of a country and it's ability to self govern.

With that said, International Law does not trump National Sovereignty. If it does, there is not a free nation on earth.

The truth is is International Law comes down to the law of the big stick stick. If you have the biggest stick....bigger than anyone. You can dictate International Policy and thus the danger to National Sovereignty lest our stick is small.

Thus the issue of secession....If the International Community turns against our fundamental rights, our Sovereignty, we as a nation have the right as a Sovereign Nation not to recognize and resist International accords. Or in other words secede from this International group.
 
Joined
May 6, 2014
Messages
15,546
Reaction score
10,879
Exactly correct.

Slavery did not end with the War Between the States in this country.

Delaware voted AGAINST the 13th Amendment for ratification and thus the only way slavery was outlawed in this country was by the ratification of the 13th Amendment by a majority of the other States that could vote for it at the time.

This is not in any way a justification of slavery, but instead the facts from history.

Gus
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
23,352
Reaction score
22,451
Location
Republic mo
Got to disagree with you on that one CC. The Declaration of Independence declared our freedom, in the treaty of Paris GB agreed to recognize that freedom.
Our freedom is given to us by our creator, it is our birthright. This is recognized later in the constitutions bill of rights. The first amendment doesn’t give you the five freedoms instead it prevents congress from making any law abridging those freedoms. Those freedoms all ready exist. The same in the second “the right of the people to own and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The right, in fact all rights are our birth right, not something a government can grant. A government can only protect your rights or infringe on your rights, but can’t grant any right.
Even as late as 1938 Germany was free to practice slavery in its own borders, with out the world saying peep about it. Europe went to war only after Germany invaded Poland. And then there was a six week period Hitler could have stopped it but he over played his hand.
International law was very good at recognizing ”˜real politic’ GB wasn’t so upset over slavery it turned down southern cotton that got through or refused to build ships for and supply arms via third parties to the south. Had the south won GB and France might ”˜hurumph’ a bit but would have taken southern slave produced products without difficulty.
As to southern survivablity after the war I would point to the little countries of South America and Central America that survived well. They have not become major players in the world but are free and independent countries.
 
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
20,091
Reaction score
990
tenngun said:
Got to disagree with you on that one CC. The Declaration of Independence declared our freedom, in the treaty of Paris GB agreed to recognize that freedom. .

You can "declare" whatever you like....Even create your own reality...It does not become real until it is recognized by others.
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
23,352
Reaction score
22,451
Location
Republic mo
I think you missing the point. Rights do not flow from the government to the people. Power flows from the people to the government. Peons in Mexico,farm boys in Massachusetts, roundheads in England fought for their rights. Not gifts from the government but rights they possess outside of,or from above and beyond the government. We had the right to be free of England at any time. Yes we had to fight but England didn’t grant us our freedom, they recognized our freedom. Mexico, all of South America proclaimed their rights and forced Spain to recognize those rights. England recognized the rights of Canada and Australia with out having to fight a war. In India Ghandi forced England to recognize India’s rights mostly non violently.
In all those cases free people were only acting to secure their rights. Rights that government exist to protect not grant.
At least that was the thinking of the enlightenment philosophers that influenced our founders, that was the thinking of the Roman republic and the Classical Greek States.
A powerful government may repress your right, prevent you from being free... but you have a right to freedom.
“Every where man is born free, everywhere he lives in chains”
 
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
20,091
Reaction score
990
tenngun said:
Yes we had to fight but England didn’t grant us our freedom, they recognized our freedom. Mexico, all of South America proclaimed their rights and forced Spain to those rights. England recognized the rights of Canada and Australia with out recognizehaving to fight a war. In India Ghandi forced England to recognize India’s rights mostly non violently.
In all those cases free people were only acting to secure their rights. Rights that government exist to protect not grant.
At least that was the thinking of the enlightenment philosophers that influenced our founders, that was the thinking of the Roman republic and the Classical Greek States.
A powerful government may repress your right, prevent you from being free... but you have a right to freedom.
“Every where man is born free, everywhere he lives in chains”


Yes!...That's what I said,

Colorado Clyde said:
It does not become real until it is recognized by others.

Thank you for illustrating my point.


I am curious though, do you know who this quote is from that you quoted?

“Every where man is born free, everywhere he lives in chains"
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
23,352
Reaction score
22,451
Location
Republic mo
I still think your missing the point, the freedom exist wether or not it’s recognized. Not recognizing can lead to endless strife in the oppressed society, but the rights are there wether or not the oppressors recognize them or not.
Yes I know who said the quote even though I misquoted with an extra ”˜everywhere’ . I’m a big fan of the eighteenth century... but you knew that.
By the by, if you put an unknown quote in google it brings it up real quick.
 
Top