Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your preceding baseless commentary aside, I shall simply repeat once again that there was no Paris Agreement that established an international law regarding state sovereignty, except in your imagination. There were a series of peace treaties negotiated at Paris in 1783, one of which wherein the British Crown renounced all claims to the 13 colonies and recognized them as sovereign states, something the said colonies declared for themselves in 1776 and which were recognized by both France and the Netherlands much earlier than 1783.
As for the "ratification papers" its apparent that your reading comprehension requires some work. Each statement of ratification from the state conventions that went beyond simply approving or rejecting the proposed constitution explicitly stated that they expected the future US Congress to pass amendments for future ratification by the states. I'd post the direct quotes, but you will probably disregard them, and I've done more than enough work debunking your claims on this thread.
^^^^^ LMAO! 1783 Paris Agreement: A treaty signed by all parties and legal. It's a lot longer than than but I will put the basics.
Britain acknowledges the United States (New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia) to be free, sovereign, and independent states, and that the British Crown and all heirs and successors relinquish claims to the Government, property, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof,
Establishing the boundaries of the United States, including but not limited to those between the United States and British North America from the Mississippi River to the Southern colonies. Britain surrenders their previously-owned land,
I made that up. I wasn't even born but I made that treaty up. I guess it's you with the reading comprehension deficit and lacking of civics. If the Treaty didn't give the 13 states their sovereignty and boundaries, what document did?
Thanks for the laugh. Yes, nice simple history. North = GOOD. South= war mongers slaver holders immoral people.
Just wanted to point out that the source that Ellis Bell is employing is a book published in 1866 by Edward A Pollard, entitled The Lost Cause; A New Southern History of the War of the Confederates.
The next time that someone claims that history is written by the victors, point them to this book. Pollard, a Confederate sympathizer, planted the seed of the 'Lost Cause' mythology of the Civil War with this book.
He was the Editor of the Richmond "Examiner" During the war and a Virginian man and yes, he did plant the seed within the title of his book in 1866.
"It is a curious instance of Northern misrepresentation in politics and of their cunning in fastening a false political nomenclature upon the South, that the ingenious doctrine of Mr. Calhoun, which was eminently conservative, and directly addressed to saving the Union, should have been titled " Nullification," and its author branded as a Disunionist. Unfortunately, the world has got most of its opinions of Southern parties and men from the shallow pages of Northern books ; and it will take it long to learn the lessons that the system of negro servitude in the South was not Slavery ;" that John C. Calhoun was not a Disunionist;" and that the war of 1861, brought on by Northern insurgents against the authority of the Constitution, was not a " Southern rebellion." Names are apparently slight things ; but they create the first impression ; they solicit the sympathies of the vulgar ; and they often create a cloud of prejudice which the greatest exertions of intelligence find it impossible wholly to dispel. But it is not the place here to analyze at length the party terms of America ; and the proper definition of the words we have referred to as falsely applied to the South will appear, and will be easily apprehended in the general argument and context of our narrative. " The lost cause; a new southern history of the war of the Confederates. ... #51 (p.43)
Did you know that Massachusetts declared succession four times after joining the union? The goods they produced were not getting the 'protections' the u.s. Federal government was to provide. They had the same issue with lobbyist then, that we do know, the difference now is we just verbally complain of the corruption, we don't go to war over it.
Did you know that Massachusetts declared succession four times after joining the union? The goods they produced were not getting the 'protections' the u.s. Federal government was to provide. They had the same issue with lobbyist then, that we do know, the difference now is we just verbally complain of the corruption, we don't go to war over it.
True. Those damn traitors. I never knew one of them but I need to feel outraged about dead people. We have to tear everything down from them in Mass.
"The United States shall guarantee to each State its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this constitution expressly delegated to the United States." This is simple and here you are still in denial what does it mean
.
These words are not in the Constitution. They are from the Articles of Confederation, which ceased to be relevant once the Constitution was ratified.
These words are not in the Constitution. They are from the Articles of Confederation, which ceased to be relevant once the Constitution was ratified.
10th amendment of the constitution signed by all states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Since the constitution doesn't say anything about slavery (until 1865) and the power of seceding which the states retains during the ratification papers. That puts a huge hole in the North war on the South.
Let's ignore the Paris Agreement and the states ratification papers. Burn all that. Just take the own words of the U.S. Constitution:.
The powers not delegated (Given permission by the states) to the Unites States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are RESERVED to the States respectively, or the people.
Says powers not Constitutionally granted to the Federal Government belong to States or the People.
It's saying it right there in ENGLISH. All powers NOT delegated by the states to the Union and not prohibited to the states are reserved to the states.
Secede a power? YES
is that power given to the Union? NO
is that power prohibited to the states: NO
is that power reserved to the states: YES
All according to the constitution which was ratified by the states but lets ignore that and stick to the actual constitution. Ignoring the 10th amendment is like ignoring the 13th and might as well put blacks in slavery again.
Last edited by SanJuanStar; 02-02-2022 at 12:18 PM..
^^^^^ LMAO! 1783 Paris Agreement: A treaty signed by all parties and legal. It's a lot longer than than but I will put the basics.
Britain acknowledges the United States (New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia) to be free, sovereign, and independent states, and that the British Crown and all heirs and successors relinquish claims to the Government, property, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof,
Establishing the boundaries of the United States, including but not limited to those between the United States and British North America from the Mississippi River to the Southern colonies. Britain surrenders their previously-owned land,
I made that up. I wasn't even born but I made that treaty up. I guess it's you with the reading comprehension deficit and lacking of civics. If the Treaty didn't give the 13 states their sovereignty and boundaries, what document did?
Thanks for the laugh. Yes, nice simple history. North = GOOD. South= war mongers slaver holders immoral people.
Under the American Congress of Confederate States that that document came into being, the States were termed a Perpetual Union. It was not consummated until 1781, each States retains its sovereignty ...
"The objects and character of this confederation or union were thus distinctly defined. Under its terms the war of the Revolution was successfully waged, and resulted in the treaty of peace with Great Britain in 1783, by the terms of which the several States were, each by name, recognized to be independent.
As the Confederation originated in the necessities of the war against Great Britain, it was these necessities which determined its character and measured its powers. It was something more than a military alliance ; for it was intended to unite the resources of the States, to make a common financial fund, and to " secure the public credit at home and abroad." Partial and imperfect as was the union it established, it accomplished a great historical work, and dated an important era ; it supplied what scarcely anything else could have supplied — a political bond between colonies suddenly erected into sovereign States ; it was the stepping stone to a firmer association of the States, and a more perfect union. In this sense are to be found its true offices and value. " The lost cause; a new southern history of the war of the Confederates. ... #44 (p.36)
The convention of delegates in Philadelphia 1787 desired to preserve this Union, Lincoln set out to make it a more perfect Union. At no time during all this did they decide to free the slaves and count them as citizens of the u.s.
Now did they have the legal right to succeed a 'binding' contract? Still working on that in discovery, but it seems to me the States adopted that right within their State Constitutions. The States were voted into the Union and the Federal government had to agree to the wording within their State Constitutions, before they could be admitted.
Good article to discuss in history class but at the end it says : The outcome of the war was decided by a complex mix of factors. How important each one was is a matter of opinion and ever-shifting debate.
The North won because they had the bigger Army and more resources and Lincoln was willing to go tyrant and keep the North in line by putting his critics in jail and closing newspapers and suspending the constitution as the same to the South. He torched the South and choked them with a blockade of food and medicine. Lincoln was willing to go the extra mile of being ruthless on steroids than the South.
If Great Britain had Lincoln has their King, the U.S. today would be part of G.B. and he would have torched the 13 colonies and hung George Washington and the founding fathers from a rope in London.
Your final paragraph made my heart skip a beat at the thought of the Union Jack fluttering over everywhere from sea to shining sea, then I thought, “No, it wouldn’t be the great country with the real nice people that I’ve got used to visiting over the years”, so to that end I’m glad that you kicked us out and became the country that you are now.
As to the Civil War, I’ve studied it at length and it seems to me that no matter the superiority of the North in men and munitions, it was a closer run thing than many believe.
Granted he’s remembered now for being the nasty guy who became the first Grand Wizard of the Klan, but if the military genius Nathan Bedford Forrest had commanded the Army of Northern Virginia instead of General Robert E. Lee, (who was certainly no slouch), and brought his ‘get there fastest with the mostest’ ideas with him, then maybe the South might have prevailed at Antietam, and Forrest may have agreed with “Old Pete” Longstreet that Pickett’s charge at Gettysburg wasn’t a good military idea.
It’s all academic now, the brave barefoot boys in grey, (gray if you prefer), stacked arms at Appomattox, and the Grand Army of the Republic marched through Washington D.C. to celebrate the fact that the Union was restored.
Forget everything else before the constitution. Even if you burn all that you still have the 10th Amendment of the constitution that tells you flat out who is right here and who is wrong:
10th: The powers not delegated (Given permission by the states) to the Unites States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are RESERVED to the States respectively, or the people.
The North right there not only violated their own constitution and treaty and waged an illegal war on other states but it's a long pattern of illegal wars by this same union for centuries. Ask the Natives, they broke so many treaties with the Natives that I need more fingers to count.
Last edited by SanJuanStar; 02-02-2022 at 12:10 PM..
Your final paragraph made my heart skip a beat at the thought of the Union Jack fluttering over everywhere from sea to shining sea, then I thought, “No, it wouldn’t be the great country with the real nice people that I’ve got used to visiting over the years”, so to that end I’m glad that you kicked us out and became the country that you are now.
As to the Civil War, I’ve studied it at length and it seems to me that no matter the superiority of the North in men and munitions, it was a closer run thing than many believe.
Granted he’s remembered now for being the nasty guy who became the first Grand Wizard of the Klan, but if the military genius Nathan Bedford Forrest had commanded the Army of Northern Virginia instead of General Robert E. Lee, (who was certainly no slouch), and brought his ‘get there fastest with the mostest’ ideas with him, then maybe the South might have prevailed at Antietam, and Forrest may have agreed with “Old Pete” Longstreet that Pickett’s charge at Gettysburg wasn’t a good military idea.
It’s all academic now, the brave barefoot boys in grey, (gray if you prefer), stacked arms at Appomattox, and the Grand Army of the Republic marched through Washington D.C. to celebrate the fact that the Union was restored.
Is kinda of hard to take Lincoln and the North serious about a perfect union when they illegally torched the states in the South, destroyed their economy, violated their rights and put a blockage of food and medicine slowly choking them to death. What you are going to end up with it's a bitter and economically inferior half of the union. They could have let them go and keep peace and leave the door open later to enter back in the union.
Your are British, didn't you country left the European Union. I don't see the EU putting a blockade of food and medicine on your island or torching your country into pieces for 4 years to force you back.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
