There was no "rebellion"

TomEvans

Active Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2025
Messages
997
Reaction score
37
I have to say that there was no "rebellion," since every state was free, sovereign and independent under international law and recognition; and some of these states were simply exercising that power, to change their foreign policy among themselves.South Carolina.png

And the US government never claimed that they ever stopped being sovereign-- just that they never had been:

lincoln.png

Therefore, since the individual states were indeed each without a political superior, following the American Revolution; there was a second revolution.

But this was committed by the Union-state officials, against all of the states; involving a totalitarian coup by the US government, by a conspiracy of mass-deception, to falsely claim national union over 34 sovereign nations; and doing so via a campaign of Total War, propaganda and censorship under fabricated history, so seize power under false claim of national union (which never existed).

sheep washington.jpg

And so they were-- to this day:

obama Civil War final.png


The legal mistakes here, are simple: since there was never a national government; but simply a federal government over an international union among separate sovereign nations.... and this fact was simply suppressed, under a campaign of mass-propaganda--

So legally, what does this mean for today?

It means that each state remains a separate sovereign nation, under the supreme national authority of its respective electorate: who may choose their respective state's national policy as their prerogative-- as is their choice in how to deal with the totalitarian order that usurped national claim over them, that is the current US government.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
18,609
Reaction score
5,830
I have to say that there was no "rebellion," since every state was free, sovereign and independent under international law and recognition; and some of these states were simply exercising that power, to change their foreign policy among themselves.
No, states were not free and independent of their responsibilities to the Constitution and other States... They took up arms against the Constitution, and the Federal State has the obligation and duty to defend it... The people in government take an oath to protect it against enemies from within and without...
 

TomEvans

Active Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2025
Messages
997
Reaction score
37
No, states were not free and independent of their responsibilities to the Constitution and other States...
They were 13 separate sovereign nations in 1776.

The Constitution came afterward.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
18,609
Reaction score
5,830
They were 13 separate sovereign nations in 1776.

The Constitution came afterward.
Your delusions the you arborvitae endlessly fails the Falsification Theory... It is pseudohistory... You need to offer links to this thinkers of the past that support your fallacy... I gave you a link to a site that thinks similarly to you use it... Is there a battle you like to discuss are the merits of slavery...


 

TomEvans

Active Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2025
Messages
997
Reaction score
37
Your delusions the you arborvitae endlessly fails the Falsification Theory... It is pseudohistory... You need to offer links to this thinkers of the past that support your fallacy... I gave you a link to a site that thinks similarly to you use it... Is there a battle you like to discuss are the merits of slavery...
Since you provide no legal counter-argument in your response, you forfeit the point.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
18,609
Reaction score
5,830
I prove over and over your misinterpretation of the history reverence and posted links to my points while you posted memes... I showed you Jefferson used Natural Rights to craft the DoI... I showed you social contract theory.... And much more you failed at every trum , even SCOUTS made a ruling ... There is no legal or philosophical thinkers that support your fallacy.... I have all them cards...
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
18,609
Reaction score
5,830
Since you provide no legal counter-argument in your response, you forfeit the point.
The establishment of legal and historical scholars supports my argument over yours for you have to scholarship work supporting your argument... I can tell you the sky is blue, but you would say it's purple and you would repeat it over and over... Yes if you repeat lies enough times someone will believe it....
 
Last edited:

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
18,609
Reaction score
5,830
Once more, in English, please?
I rewrote it... Go back and read it... Memes and quotes are used to support a debate, not to be the argument... You need books, papers, articles, and videos, and you have none.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
18,609
Reaction score
5,830
Here is a thought.... Was it a rebellion or a war of independence the funny thing is they are the same thing... Lincoln called it a insurrection... For legal reason...

Abraham Lincoln called the Confederate secession and war an insurrection (or rebellion) because he viewed the Union as perpetual and states couldn't lawfully leave; after the attack on Fort Sumter, he proclaimed an insurrection existed, called for militia to suppress it, and Congress later ratified his actions as suppressing a violent rebellion against the U.S. government

Confederate View (Davis): The war was for "Southern Independence," a defense of states' rights and Southern society (including slavery) from an overreaching federal power. Davis famously stated, "All we ask is to be let alone".

Union View (Lincoln/North): The war was a rebellion by disloyal states seeking to destroy the Union, a treasonous act against the established government, with preserving the Union as the primary goal, notes Gettysburg College.

In essence, Davis led a rebellion but saw it as a legitimate struggle for liberty. In contrast, the North saw it as a rebellion against its legitimate authority, making the term "rebellion" a point of contention.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
18,609
Reaction score
5,830
Here the reason Lincoln demanded the civil war was an insurrection...

If Lincoln hadn't called the Civil War an "insurrection," Britain might have recognized the Confederacy sooner, as it would have framed the conflict more as a legitimate, independent struggle (a "belligerent" status, not just rebellion), which suited Britain's desire for Southern cotton and avoiding war with the Union, but Lincoln's focus on it as a domestic rebellion (not a foreign war) was crucial diplomacy to prevent recognition and maintain Union leverage, warning Britain recognition meant war.
 

TomEvans

Active Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2025
Messages
997
Reaction score
37
The establishment of legal and historical scholars supports my argument over yours
That's not how law or history works.

Law is what's written and intended; history is what really happened.
 

TomEvans

Active Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2025
Messages
997
Reaction score
37
Here is a thought.... Was it a rebellion or a war of independence the funny thing is they are the same thing... Lincoln called it a insurrection... For legal reason...

Abraham Lincoln called the Confederate secession and war an insurrection (or rebellion) because he viewed the Union as perpetual and states couldn't lawfully leave; after the attack on Fort Sumter, he proclaimed an insurrection existed, called for militia to suppress it, and Congress later ratified his actions as suppressing a violent rebellion against the U.S. government

Confederate View (Davis): The war was for "Southern Independence," a defense of states' rights and Southern society (including slavery) from an overreaching federal power. Davis famously stated, "All we ask is to be let alone".

Union View (Lincoln/North): The war was a rebellion by disloyal states seeking to destroy the Union, a treasonous act against the established government, with preserving the Union as the primary goal, notes Gettysburg College.

In essence, Davis led a rebellion but saw it as a legitimate struggle for liberty. In contrast, the North saw it as a rebellion against its legitimate authority, making the term "rebellion" a point of contention.
No, the American Revolution established the states as 13 separate fully-sovereign nations.

Others were entitled to their opinions, but not their own facts.
 
Last edited:

TomEvans

Active Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2025
Messages
997
Reaction score
37
Here the reason Lincoln demanded the civil war was an insurrection...

If Lincoln hadn't called the Civil War an "insurrection," Britain might have recognized the Confederacy sooner, as it would have framed the conflict more as a legitimate, independent struggle (a "belligerent" status, not just rebellion), which suited Britain's desire for Southern cotton and avoiding war with the Union, but Lincoln's focus on it as a domestic rebellion (not a foreign war) was crucial diplomacy to prevent recognition and maintain Union leverage, warning Britain recognition meant war.
The American Revolution established the states as 13 separate fully-sovereign nations, as expressly recognized in 1783 by Great Britain.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
18,609
Reaction score
5,830
The American Revolution established the states as 13 separate fully-sovereign nations, as expressly recognized in 1783 by Great Britain.
Britain gave them their freedom, and with that freedom, they went on to create the United States. You seem to miss the point that I have posted over and over: not one colony was recognized as an equal by other nations, while the United States was... I have posted information about Native American tribes recognized by the United States and Canada, which grants them equal status...
 

TomEvans

Active Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2025
Messages
997
Reaction score
37
Britain gave them their freedom, and with that freedom, they went on to create the United States. You seem to miss the point that I have posted over and over: not one colony was recognized as an equal by other nations, while the United States was...
Correct: EVERY STATE was, as a former colony of the same name-- and the same borders.

Treaty of paris3.png

Perhaps you don't know what "free, sovereign states" means; but still, I would assume that you know the meaning of the words "treats with them."
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
18,609
Reaction score
5,830
I have to say that there was no "rebellion," since every state was free, sovereign and independent under international law and recognition; and some of these states were simply exercising that power, to change their foreign policy among themselves.
I will use Robert E. Lee's own words to set you straight... I am going to introduce you to DiLorenzo, your familiar... he will help refine your argument... but still wrong and still lose to me...


William Henry Fitzhugh Lee, known as Rooney, in January 1861, concerned mainly with family matters, Lee lamented the secession crisis and wrote (emphasis added):

“The South in my opinion has been aggrieved by the acts of the North as you say. I feel the aggression, & am willing to take every proper step for redress. It is the principle I contend for, not individual or private benefit. As an American citizen I take great pride in my country, her prosperity & institutions & would defend any State if her rights were invaded. But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, & I am willing to sacrifice every thing but honour for its preservation. I hope therefore that all Constitutional means will be exhausted, before there is a resort to force. Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom & forbearance in its formation & surrounded it with so many guards & securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the confederacy at will. It was intended for pepetual [sic] union, so expressed in the preamble, & for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established & not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison & the other patriots of the Revolution. In 1808 when the New England States resisted Mr Jeffersons Imbargo law & the Hartford Convention assembled secession was termed treason by Virga (Virginia) statesmen. What can it be now? Still a union that can only be maintained by swords & bayonets, & in which strife & civil war are to take the place of brotherly love & kindness, has no charm for me. I shall mourn for my country, & for the welfare & progress of mankind. If the Union is dissolved & the government disrupted, I shall return to my native State & share the miseries of my people & save in her defence will draw my sword on none.”
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
18,609
Reaction score
5,830
Abraham Lincoln called the Confederate secession and war an insurrection (or rebellion)
Of course Lincoln would not meet with Confederate representatives, for doing so would grant legitimacy to the Confederacy. That is something of a sticking point, after all.

Here is more Dilorenzo to help you with your argument. In an interview with him, he uses your same points...

 

TomEvans

Active Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2025
Messages
997
Reaction score
37
I will use Robert E. Lee's own words to set you straight...
Yes, I KNOW Lee's words....

Lee.png

And I'm going to use Sen. Robert Byrd's words, to set YOU straight.

Byrd Lincoln.png

The difference is, that the Allied commanders didn't AGREE with Hitler, like Lee did with Lincoln!

So let's get down to the core, here:

DO YOU CLAIM, like Lincoln, that the states formed a sovereign nation in 1776, that was political superior to all the states? Yes, or no?

I'm guessing you can't even pick one or the other.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
18,609
Reaction score
5,830
And I'm going to use Sen. Robert Byrd's words, to set YOU straight.
Byrd's words do not relate to anything we are talking about...
DO YOU CLAIM, like Lincoln, that the states formed a sovereign nation in 1776, that was political superior to all the states? Yes, or no?
Yes, and explained in yesterday's and today's posts... over and over...
 
Top