Posted on 03/02/2020 3:07:25 AM PST by Bull Snipe
The Commandant of the Marine Corp, General David Berger, has ordered "the removal of fall Confederate-related paraphernalia from Marine Corp installations.
Story at Source URL
(Excerpt) Read more at military.com ...
Perhaps I have read the Confederate Constitution and have read what plenty of authors on the subject have written about it....and they and I do not agree with your claims.
You still don’t seem to grasp that ports do not own the goods shipped into and out of them....and that they don’t pay the tariffs levied on foreign goods. THE single biggest port into which goods are shipped for both Wal-Mart and Target (and probably the dollar stores and others besides) is Long Beach, California. Long Beach does not own those goods and does not pay the tariff on them. The Northeast specialized in shipping from early on. The Southern states specialized in cash crops for export. Just because goods were shipped out of and into Northeastern ports - especially NY does not mean NY owned those goods or that NY paid the tariff. This isn’t rocket science for those who aren’t being deliberately obtuse.
Wrong again. The wording you referring to is thus;
“His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.”
This wording was chosen by the British representatives. We don’t allow foreign countries to decide the status of the states. James Madison, John Jay, and Ben Franklin allowed the language to be used but insisted that the rest of the treaty speak of national boundaries and rights. For example;
“And that all disputes which might arise in future on the subject of the boundaries of the said United States may be prevented...”
“It is agreed that the people of the United States...”
“It is agreed that Congress shall earnestly recommend it to the legislatures of the respective states to provide for the restitution of all estates, rights, and properties, which have been confiscated belonging to real British subjects; and also of the estates, rights, and properties of persons resident in districts in the possession on his Majesty’s arms and who have not borne arms against the said United States.”
“The navigation of the river Mississippi, from its source to the ocean, shall forever remain free and open to the subjects of Great Britain and the citizens of the United States.”
“In case it should so happen that any place or territory belonging to Great Britain or to the United States should have been conquered by the arms of either from the other before the arrival of the said Provisional Articles in America, it is agreed that the same shall be restored without difficulty and without requiring any compensation.”
Noticed in all these excerpts it says United States, not each individual state. And who signed this treaty? Was it representatives from each of these “sovereign” states? No it was the representatives from the continental congress-from America.
Did these “sovereign” states then each ratify the treaty upon it’s arrival to America? NO. It was America that ratified the treaty.
Treaty of Paris - Ratification January 14, 1784
RATIFICATION OF THE TREATY BY CONGRESS.
Know ye that we, the United States in Congress assembled, having seen and considered the definitive articles aforesaid, have approved, ratified, and confirmed, and by these presents do approve, ratify, and confirm, the said articles, and every part and clause thereof, engaging and promising that we will sincerely and faithfully perform and observe the same, and never suffer them to be violated by any one, or transgressed in any manner, as far as lies in our power.
In testimony whereof we have caused the seal of the United States to be hereunto affixed.. Witness his excellency Thomas Mifflin, President, this fourteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-four, and in the eighth year of the sovereignty and independence of the United States of America.
Notice it says the sovereignty and independence of the United States of America.
And after the treaty was signed did these “sovereign” states send ambassadors and set up embassies in other countries? NO. America did.
Do you ever get tired of being wrong?
Nope!
There was a reason the Founding Fathers....several of whom were lawyers...insisted EACH state be recognized as being sovereign BY NAME.
“Free, sovereign and independent states”.
Did The allied powers insist that the Axis surrender to each Allied country.....or that they surrender to the Allies? Acting in concert/alliance/confederation does not mean each country surrendered its sovereignty.
Did you notice in Article 5....Congress RECOMMENDS to the legislature of the respective states to provide for restitution. Gosh....why didn’t Congress just order each state to do it? Isn’t that how it would work today? Why, yes. Yes it is.
Clearly you never tire of being wrong.
Nicely done! I was just drafting a reply when I saw your post. There’s nothing left to add!
Or perhaps not, given how you don't seem to know what it says.
You still don’t seem to grasp that ports do not own the goods shipped into and out of them....and that they don’t pay the tariffs levied on foreign goods.
And you don't seem to be able to answer one simple question; if the overwhelming majority of goods were destined for Southern consumers then why were the overwhelming majority of all goods landed in Northern ports?
This isn’t rocket science for those who aren’t being deliberately obtuse.
Apparently it is since you can't answer the simple question. By your logic, all those goods landed in Long Beach are destined for eastern consumers and all the goods landed in New York and Boston are destined for western consumers. It makes zero sense, but making sense doesn't seem to be of interest to you.
And many of them were blacks who owned slaves.
There were thousands of blacks who were slave owners. There were 3,000 black slave owners in the city of New Orleasn alone.
Individual ones. The Japanese surrender was signed by all the major allied powers individually. Likewise, Germany signed separate agreements with the U.S., UK, and the Soviet Union. So by your logic the Treaty of Paris should have been signed by individual representatives from each state. Was it?
“The losers were illegal insurgents who attempted to destroy America.”
You’re an idiot for using the term insurgents since it was the north that invaded the south.
Looks like a hmo.
“Any flag of any group or country that waged war against America offends me.”
Same could be said of the US flag by the British.
“Any flag of any group or country that waged war against America offends me.”
So you are offended by Marines who have battle flags??
BTW, it ins’t the Confederate flag, but your ignorance is nothing but liberalism on display.
I love how you just skip over who ratified the treaty, or sent ambassadors to other nations. Those blinders you wear are mighty thick.
You did stumble across one right thing. Under the AoC their was no way for the national government to force states to do anything. That is one of reasons the founders junked it and replaced it with a much stronger national government. That’s also why they did not want the states to be a party to its ratification. They realized that if the people ratified the constitution the states were bound by it. Therefore making it “The supreme law of the land”.
Funny I remember a long list of hostile acts by the southern states, like seizing US property and soldiers, before Lincoln was even inaugurated or they even declared themselves out of the constitution.
That is very true. Our founding fathers were rebels and therefore traitors to the British empire. That is why you don’t see any statues of George Washington on any British military bases.
I Love my country, America, too much to be a liberal. Though I will admit it seems strange to be agreeing with them on this issue. But even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Though they seem to focus more on the racist/slavery aspect(which of course any true conservative is against also) then the treason and attempted destruction of America by the southern rebels.
I just love how you skip over the fact that the treaty itself named each state and said each is free and sovereign. LOL! Its right there in the treaty. Its not like the Founding Fathers didn’t know what they were doing when they insisted on that.
“the people” did not and do not ratify anything. States do. As Madison himself said in the Federalist #39 “the people” is the people of each state acting as their own sovereign community.
The states acted together in seeking their independence. But that was the choice of each state and each - just like when sovereign countries act together in an alliance - retained their own sovereignty.
There was a reason they insisted to be named separately and to have their individual sovereignty recognized.
He’s simply wrong. Less than 9% of the total free population in South Carolina owned slaves. That was well less than 50% of all families.
Perhaps yes given that I know what it says and you clearly do not.
I did not say the goods were destined for Southern consumers. I said the goods were owned by Southerners.
Oh and yes, the goods landed in Long Beach are destined for consumers all over the country. Of course, it comes as no surprise that economics is yet another area you know nothing about.
Rufus King wrote in 1787: "The states were not “sovereigns” in the sense contended for by some. They did not possess the peculiar features of sovereignty,—they could not make war, nor peace, nor alliances, nor treaties. Considering them as political beings, they were dumb, for they could not speak to any foreign sovereign whatever. They were deaf, for they could not hear any propositions from such sovereign. They had not even the organs or faculties of defence or offence, for they could not of themselves raise troops, or equip vessels, for war.... If the states, therefore, retained some portion of their sovereignty [after declaring independence], they had certainly divested themselves of essential portions of it."
So it is your contention that these states, these "sovereign countries", willingly gave up everything that makes a sovereign nation a sovereign nation - ability to raise armies, deal with foreign governments, coin their own money, even decide on their own form of government - and yet somehow remained sovereign countries? What, exactly, was it that made them sovereign?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.