George Tyler Moore Center for the Study of the Civil War.

[LJMYERS]

George Tyler Moore, Mary Tyler Moore, Stonewall Jackson, President John Tyler, Conrad and Oskar Schindler all related one way or the other.

 

[5fish]

Since the very phrase "Civil War," begs the question that the Union was historically correct in its claims that the states had never been 13 sovereignties.

I think you have forgotten the Articles of Confederation of the United States... any sovereignty was given up then...

 

[5fish]

Since the very phrase "Civil War,"

Our 13 colonies were never recognized as individual sovereign nation states. Which nation state recognized just one as a nation state.... None... I hate to tell you under another sovereign nation state recognize you, you are not a sovereign nation state....

Ask why the Brits never recognized the Confederate flagged ships except once and the British leaders bent over backwards to apologize to the United States for it ...

Why do you think John Paul Jones getting the salute from the French warship was a big deal because it is recognition of United States as a nation state.

 

[LJMYERS]

For sure Wiscasset Sea Captain Ned Myers knew John Paul Jones. James Fenimore Cooper met Cabin Boy Ned Myers during the War of 1812. Writer Van Wyck Brooks also writes about Ned Myers. It really an unbelievable story.

 

[TomEvans]

Our 13 colonies were never recognized as individual sovereign nation states. Which nation state recognized just one as a nation state.... None... I hate to tell you under another sovereign nation state recognize you, you are not a sovereign nation state....

Great Britain recognized every American state as a sovereign nation-state, while nobody recognized the United States as one:



So by your own admission, all national sovereignty belonged solely to the individual states-- not collectively to the Union:


That's 13 separate sovereign nations.

 

[5fish]

Great Britain recognized every American state as a sovereign nation-state, while nobody recognized the United States as one:
View attachment 18242


So by your own admission, all national sovereignty belonged solely to the individual states-- not collectively to the Union:

View attachment 18245
That's 13 separate sovereign nations.

I knew you throw this but you forhot the Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union... Those 13 colonies give up their sovereignty...

Perpetual Union - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[TomEvans]

I knew you throw this but you forhot the Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union... Those 13 colonies give up their sovereignty...

Perpetual Union - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

No; each state was supremely ruled by its respective legislature.
You're confusing a confederation, which is an international union among separate sovereign nations; with a federation (or "federal state"), which is a national union among dependent states.

And so they're the opposite:



So each state remained free, sovereign and independent, as declared above (i.e. 13 sovereign nations); while simply delegating certain express powers to the international confederation of the United States.

And that follows from this:



So the states already formed an international union of separate sovereign nations, under the Declaration of Independence; and those states then formed a more detailed international union under the Articles of Confederation.

And then they did the same with the Constitution, among 9 or more of them.

Sovereign nations are not subject to outside inferences; and so they can only lose their sovereignty by express proclamation of such an act: it cannot be lost foreign constructions of international agreements.

The United States was never a state unto itself; but always simply an international union among sovereign nations, which simply delegated powers to it.

So when South Carolina engaged in the following:



He was simply carrying out the will of his state's sovereign people-- which was the very same authority, that had ratified the Constitution for the sovereign nation of South Carolina in the first place on November 21, 1789-- to overrule the federal government, and withdraw their state from the international union that had been formed by the Constitution under their will.

And so the US government had no legal authority to deny their sovereignty, as Lincoln claimed:



And that's why Lincoln had already taken away free speech, 2 months prior:



Because as we have since learned:

And as Abe knew from his predecessor:



And so they were.... sadly, while applauding like seals at a fish-fry.

:
And that lie has been repeated more than any other, thanks to censorship:

Fortunately, while the internet was late in coming, to publish the truth; it was better late than never.

 

[5fish]

Wait ... You have seem not to read the opening articles of the Articles of Confederation... Read of articles and the word perpetual can be over and over again... Our founding states gave up their Sovereignty willing to from a great Sovereign state...

Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled did on the 15th day of November in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jer-
sey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia in the Words following,
‘
ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION AND PERPETUAL UNION BETWEEN THE STATES OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, MASSACHUSETTS BAY, Rhode Island AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS, CONNECTICUT, NEW YORK, NEW JERSEY, PENNSYLVANIA, DELAWARE, MARYLAND, VIRGINIA, NORTH CAROLINA, SOUTH CAROLINA
CAROLINA AND GEORGIA"

 

[5fish]

If you do not like perpetual Union what about "We the people" opening of the Constitution... It replaced state sovereignty with poplar sovereignty... The states cease to exist as sovereigns...

Introduced the concept of "We the People": The Preamble begins with the revolutionary words "We the People of the United States". This phrase signaled that the government's authority came directly from the citizens as a whole, not from the individual states. The shift from "We the People of Virginia, and we the people of New York..." to a single national identity was a key feature of creating a new nation.

The preamble's famous opening, "We the People," replaced an earlier proposal that would have started with "We the States". This change signified that the power to establish the government came from the people of the United States as a whole, not from individual state governments.

The Constitution moved away from the idea of sovereign states, creating a single, unified nation with its power originating from the people as a whole.

Popular sovereignty in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[5fish]

Fortunately, while the internet was late in publishing the truth, it was better late than never

The Internet has muddy the waters of truth. Misinformation, lies, and conspiracies all claim truth... The Internet is like the Reformation period,. The Reformation gave the people to question and interpret the Bible... The Internet allows anyone to claim truth without consequence...

 

[TomEvans]

Wait ... You have seem not to read the opening articles of the Articles of Confederation... Read of articles and the word perpetual can be over and over again... Our founding states gave up their Sovereignty willing to from a great Sovereign state...

No; the states expressly retained their sovereignty, and never expressly united to form a federal state..

And I've explained, the word "perpetual" does not mean national, but the reverse in the given context among separate sovereign nations (which states were, as they expressly retained that status in the Articles of Confederation).

Therefore claiming national union, is an outside inference-- to which sovereign nations are not subject, by definition.

The Internet allows anyone to claim truth without consequence...

Thus superseding the prior monopoly on truth, by the state and its elite minions; which allowed it to:

• claim "national union," and then
  
  
• silence free speech as "treason" against this "national union..."
  
• and thus proceed to seize power by Total War, unopposed, by pure lies of propaganda.

If you do not like perpetual Union

If it doesn't mean "national", then the Constitution doesn't either; since the US government does not claim that the Constitution united 13 sovereign nations as a single nation, but only that they were never 13 sovereign nations.

And this was a pure lie of legal trickery, exactly as Goebbels described:

Our States have neither more nor less power than that reserved to them in the Union by the Constitution, no one of them ever having been a State out of the Union. The original ones passed into the Union even before they cast off their British colonial dependence, and the new ones each came into the Union directly from a condition of dependence, excepting Texas; and even Texas, in its temporary independence, was never designated a State. The new ones only took the designation of States on coming into the Union, while that name was first adopted for the old ones in and by the Declaration of Independence. Therein the "United Colonies" were declared to be "free and independent States;" but even then the object plainly was not to declare their independence of one another or of the Union, but directly the contrary, as their mutual pledge and their mutual action before, at the time, and afterwards abundantly show." --Lincoln's Message to Congress, July 4, 1861

But the states were never dependent on "each other, or the union" in a sovereign sense-- but only on Great Britain; and neither did they declare such in the Declaration of Independence, as Lincoln insinuates-- but "directly to the contrary" (while their mutual pledge was personal among the signers themselves-- it was not not official, on behalf of the states).

And their actions likewise proved this; since each state was supremely ruled by its respective legislature; not Congress, which had to go through each state's legislature to enforce everything.

what about "We the people" opening of the Constitution... It replaced state sovereignty with poplar sovereignty... The states cease to exist as sovereigns...

Again, this is all purely an outside inference; and therefore as sovereign nations, the states are not subject to it.

It is also utterly averse to historical fact.

As James Madison correctly explained, the phrase "We the people of the United States" does not refer to the peoples of the states collectively, but respectively; since each state's people ratified the Constitution for their state-- and their state only-- as the supreme rulers of their own sovereign nation, without any other states being affected:





Introduced the concept of "We the People": The Preamble begins with the revolutionary words "We the People of the United States". This phrase signaled that the government's authority came directly from the citizens as a whole, not from the individual states. The shift from "We the People of Virginia, and we the people of New York..." to a single national identity was a key feature of creating a new nation.

No; just the fact that the Constitution only went into effect, between the states that chose to ratify it:



So again, this proves the national sovereignty of the individual states, since they could not be forced into the Constitutional union by the others.

This was was why the Constitution was itself an act of secession, by each ratifying state; since it opposed the Articles of Confederation, which required ratification by all states to make any changes:



As James Madison again explained:



So the states ratified the Constitution as follows:

And once 12 of the states ratified the Constitution, then Rhode Island was left without a Union, and ratified out of choice.

The preamble's famous opening, "We the People," replaced an earlier proposal that would have started with "We the States". This change signified that the power to establish the government came from the people of the United States as a whole, not from individual state governments.

No-- because each state was ruled by its respective legislature before the Constitution; not its actual people.

And so, each state legislature surrendered sovereignty to its respective people (as represented by its respective electorate), as their respective state's supreme rulers -- prior to ratifying the Constitution.

As James Madison correctly explains in Federalist No 39, above:

On examining the first relation, it appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but, on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves.

So the phrase "the people," simply simply means the voters of the particular state respectively, regarding that state as a sovereign nation; it does not mean all of the states collectively, forming a single nation.

As Madison correctly concluded:

The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a NATIONAL, but a FEDERAL act.

That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a MAJORITY of the people of the Union, nor from that of a MAJORITY of the States. It must result from the UNANIMOUS assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.

Likewise, they, the state voters, are the supreme authority; and not any state or federal government, to which they simply delegate power to act as their subordinates-- and thus the people of any state can also revoke that delegated power as well, by overruling them.

As I also explained, this was the case when the people of South Carolina withdrew their state, from the international Constitutional union in 1860, acting through their state officials to exercise their will by overruling the US government.

This is why Lincoln denied the historical fact, of the states being 13 separate sovereignties; since it destroyed his "national union" claims, because the Constitution did not unite 13 sovereign nations, as a single sovereign nation.

Rather, it simply formed an international union, in which each state was supremely ruled by its respective people, rather than its respective legislature; and thus they were able to delegate senior authority to the federal government to act as their subordinates-- but also were able to overrule them at will, to prevent corruption.

And this is why lobbyists hired political zealots like Jackson and Lincoln, to outright deny this historical fact:

• in order to secretly seize power over the people of every state, and despotically rule them through political cronies, in the people's own name-- and thus turning elections into mere investments;
• while the people no longer consented to their government, but were dictated mere token choice by it;
• while under a false history, to claim legitimacy and hide the usurpation.

But this myth:

The Constitution moved away from the idea of sovereign states, creating a single, unified nation with its power originating from the people as a whole.

..... has been busted!

 

[LJMYERS]

Fake Sign and House!!!!

 

[5fish]

As James Madison correctly explains in Federalist No 39, above:

States get trumped... in the legal world, be careful what you write...

"We the People" in the preamble establishes that the U.S. Constitution's power comes from the citizens, not the states. This was a significant shift from earlier documents that referred to "the States," and it asserts that the federal government is sovereign over the states because it was created by and for the people as a whole.

"perpetual" does

In the Articles of Confederation, "perpetual" means the union of states was intended to be permanent and indissoluble, with no option for a state to leave. This "perpetual union" was a formal commitment to a lasting "league of friendship" for purposes like common defense, not a temporary agreement, as stated in Article

And once 12 of the states ratified the Constitution, then Rhode Island was left without a Union, and ratified out of choice

Even though North Carolina and Rhode Island were late ratifying the Constitution, they were two independent Republics until they joined...

The states ratified the Constitution in the following order: Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island. New Hampshire's ratification on June 21, 1788, made the Constitution official after it was ratified by the required ninth state, with the final state, Rhode Island, ratifying in May 1790.

 

[5fish]

But the states were never dependent on "each other, or the union" in a sovereign sense-- but only on Great Britain; and neither did they declare such in the Declaration of Independence, as Lincoln insinuates-- but "directly to the contrary" (while their mutual pledge was personal among the signers themselves-- it was not not official, on behalf of the states).

The 13 colonies declared independence as a collective, they fought a war as a collective, and they signed a treaty ending the war. All under one entity, the United States of America, and they, under the entity, call the United States of America, created a nation under the same name not once but twice. You are silly to think they were individual.

In the following years, states got trump legally by these words "We the people" ...

"We the People", "the people", "the right of the people" so forth... What does it mean?

Our Constitution uses the founding terms "We the People" , "the people" , "right of the people". What does our Constitution mean by the word "people" and is the a difference between a capitalized "P" and a small "p" when using the word "people"? The paragraph below setups up the issue quite well...

www.jggscivilwartalk.online

Like the word people means different things in our Constitution. Your favorite woods, sovereignty and sovereign, mean different things when they are used in your post, you're bashing over my head...

 

[5fish]

Here is a guy (link) who does not like the perpetual argument, then throws in states that exited the Articles of Confederation without penalty, but he leaves out entering the Constitution... He argues for forcing future generations to live up to the agreements of their forefathers... The solution in social contract theory which he avoids...

AI response...
In 1788, nine states withdrew from the existing Articles of Confederation when they ratified the new U.S. Constitution. This move did not lead to charges of "treason" because it was a legally prescribed process for establishing a new framework of government. The Articles of Confederation were designed to be a "perpetual" union, but the process for its replacement was laid out in Article VII of the proposed Constitution.

The "perpetual union theory" is the legal principle that a nation formed by a union of states is an "indivisible" and permanent entity from which states cannot legally secede. This concept was first established in the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union and was later upheld in the United States through the Civil War and the Supreme Court's decision in Texas v. White. This means states cannot unilaterally leave the union, a view famously articulated by President Abraham Lincoln, who argued that the union formed under the Constitution was perpetual

Founding Principles of the United States: The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union - Carolina Museum of the Marine 1

The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union | Article by James Danielson, Civic paper

www.museumofthemarine.org

When independent sovereign states enter into alliances, what is the nature of the agreement among them? The answer to this question is suggested in the title of the constitution agreed to among the states. The Articles of Confederation established a “perpetual” union. But the perpetual union established among the thirteen American states in 1781 ended in 1788 when nine states withdrew from it (without charges of “treason”). What, then, is a “perpetual union”? The Articles of Confederation, like the Constitution of the United States, was a compact among sovereign states. A compact (a contract) is said to be perpetual when it has within it no term of duration. If a compact does not stipulate an end date, it is said to be a compact of perpetual term, or a compact-at-will, which means that the parties to the compact may negotiate a departure from it as each party deems proper. There is no such thing in law as a compact into which people may enter at will, but once a party to the compact, may never leave on pain of force and violence. Moreover, no living generation may agree to a political compact that binds their descendants forever thereafter. It is odd indeed to say, following the Declaration of Independence, that the authority of government rests on the consent of the governed, and then insist nevertheless that future generations must abide by the current political order whether they like it or not. Every compact must provide for rescission, for the parties to it to withdraw from it, otherwise it is not a compact but an instrument of continual political control which cannot exist among a free and sovereign people. In other words, where such an instrument of political control is in force, the people living under it are not free, regardless of official rhetoric. This shows us what people in our founding generation understood well: for freedom to flourish, government must be kept to its narrow and proper functions, and thus usurpations of power must be resisted the moment they appear. The concern here is the dreaded precedent. If we allow an unlawful act by government, we have accepted that government may act outside the law that governs it, and thus there are no functioning limits on its power.

 

[LJMYERS]

Big Pigs=Big Bacon

 

[5fish]

 

[LJMYERS]

Secretary of State Edmond Jennings Randolph of Carter Hall Millwood VA.

 

[5fish]

 

[LJMYERS]

The Gatsby was long from Gratz as in Gratzby staring Frank Sinatra's wife.