[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: 1775 . . . Again?
Source: Eric Peters Autos
URL Source: https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2019/12/23/1775-again/
Published: Dec 23, 2019
Author: Eric
Post Date: 2019-12-24 07:56:34 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 8258
Comments: 55

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

When people desperately trying to avoid a fight are left no choice but to fight, they are often the fiercest fighters imaginable.

The reason being an explosion of righteous anger – of berserker fury – directed at the bullies who will not leave them be.

Governor “Coonman” Northam of Virginia is such a bully.

He intends to rescind the current, ancient and long-acknowledged legal right of Virginians  who aren’t criminals to possess more than single shot rifles and pistols – by criminalizing anyone who does possess them.

These newly minted “criminals” will then be required to turn in their formerly legal firearms to the government or be subject to Hut! Hut! Hutting! by armed government workers sent by the Coonman to enforce his criminal acts.

These acts include the criminalization of any “training” – even without firearms – which the Coonman and his supporters consider potentially “anti-government.”

This is a recipe for 1775.

Another bully – Thomas Gage, the British military governor of Massachusetts – attempted a “Coonman” in that year, which lit the fuse of what became the Revolutionary War. He sent armed government workers – Redcoats – to confiscate the weapons of the colonists – who had finally had their fill of being bullied. These long-ago AGWs eventually gunned down several colonists on the village green at Lexington.

Word of the massacre spread and the people rose in response, fighting back with whatever means available, harrying the column of armed government workers as it made its way back toward Boston, some 18 miles away.

The fury incited by that long-ago “Coonman” was subsequently described by himself:

These people show a spirit and conduct against us they never showed against the French . . . They are now spirited up by a rage and enthusiasm as great as ever people were possessed of and you must proceed in earnest or give the business up. A small body acting in one spot will not avail, you must have large armies making diversions on different sides, to divide their force. The loss we have sustained is greater than we can bear. Small armies cannot afford such losses, especially when the advantage gained tends to do little more than the gaining of a post.” 

Eight years later, those furious colonists finally succeeded in getting the bullies off their backs – permanently.

They probably never imagined that homegrown bullies even worse than “Coonman” Gage would eventually arise to torment them.

The current “Coonman” may not realize just how very tired the people are of being bullied – and how willing they are to fight, if a fight is forced upon them.

The “Coonman” feels confident. He has the full weight and force of the government and all its means at his disposal. He has legions of armed government workers available to enforce his writ.

But he hasn’t got the fury – and that is something he ought to reckon with, before it it is too late.

I speak from a rural SW Va county, in which most of the people living here know one another. Know they are not criminals, no matter what laws the Coonman may hurl characterizing them as such.

It is a very different to “red flag” and sic police department Hut! Hut! Hutters! on someone in a suburban home whose neighbors have no idea who he is than it is to order local sheriffs – who know their neighbor – to Hut! Hut! Hut! him on orders from Richmond. There is no “gun violence” problem in my county and everyone knows it. They therefore understand that what Coonman is proposing is not some kind of needed curative but the criminalization of almost an entire populace by distant tyrants who are loathed by almost the entire populace.

People such as Coonman are viewed as illegitimate foreigners; creatures who speak a foreign language, even though it is English. People here have had enough. The differences are irreconcilable. And the resentment is boiling.

Look at a map of the last election. The state remains overwhelmingly red – but the blues control the entire state government. It is because the blues – like a cancerous mole – control the densely populated counties adjacent to the federal capital. The reds no longer have a say in state government – and people who have no say tend to get angry. Right now, they are extremely angry.

It could get out of control very quickly.

It will be hard for the Coonman and his followers to portray 90 percent of the people living in the counties outside of Northern Virginia and Richmond as “criminals” by passing laws transforming them into criminals.

If this thing starts, it will not end until one or the other side is no longer capable of fighting. It will be no-quarter-given. It will be awful.

But it will be righteous.

And it may be the only way.

(7 images)

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 29.

#8. To: Deckard (#0)

No, it's not 1775 again. There's no French Navy or Army out there that might come in and save rebel bacon.

I hope it's not 1861 again either. There was no French, or British, Navy or Army coming that time, making the result inevitable.

Armed rebellion against the authority of the US or a state will simply result in something akin to Waco, on a grander scale perhaps. It is not the way.

Vicomte13  posted on  2019-12-27   16:07:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Vicomte13, Deckard (#8)

I hope it's not 1861 again either. There was no French, or British, Navy or Army coming that time, making the result inevitable.

Armed rebellion against the authority of the US or a state will simply result in something akin to Waco, on a grander scale perhaps.

Please forgive my intrusion or digression, but I haven't had occasion to drag out the documents about putting the militia to work in many years. For those unfamiliar with how to get a really big civil disturbance going, here are the historical documents regarding use of the military force against combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals. For example, the combinations may be interfering with the ability to collect the revenue, and that can lead to a great civil disturbance about the collection of the revenue.

The Militia Act of 1795 reads as follows:

An Act to provide for calling forth the Militia to exe­cute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrection and repel invasions, and to repeal the act now in force for those purposes.

Be it enacted, &c., That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth such number of the militia of the State or States most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action, as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper. And, in case of an insurrection in any State against the Government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the Legislature of such State, or of the Executive, (when the Legislature cannot be convened,) to call forth such number of the militia of any other State or States as may be applied for, as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That when­ever the laws of the United States shall be opposed, or the execution thereof obstructed in any State, by combinations too powerful to be sup­pressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals by this act, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such State, or of any other State or States, as may be necessary to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and the use of militia so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the then next session of Congress.

* * *

Section 1 explicitly addresses invasion and insurrection. Section 2 addresses civil disturbances which interfere with the courts and allows the militia to be used to assist the marshals of the courts to enable the courts to function and the laws to be duly executed. Attorney General Black stated that "to execute the laws of the Union" meant "to aid the federal officers in the performance of their regular duties." As there were no Federal officers in the seceded states, there were none to assist.

From Twenty Years of Congress: From Lincoln to Garfield. With a review of the events which led to the political revolution of 1860, by James G. Blaine. Vol. I, pp. 603-605.

Opinion of Judge Black, November 20, 1860

The Tenth chapter of this volume having been given to the press in advance of formal publication, many inquiries have been received in regard to the text of Judge Black's opinion of November 20, 1860, referred to on pp. 231, 232. The opinion was submitted to the President by Judge Black as Attorney-General. So much of the opinion as includes the points which are specially controverted and criticised is here given — about one-half of the entire document. It is as follows:—

. . . "I come now to the point in your letter which is probably of the greatest practical importance. By the Act of 1807 you may employ such parts of the land and naval forces as you may judge necessary for the purpose of causing the laws to be duly executed, in all cases where it is lawful to use the militia for the same purpose. By the Act of 1795 the militia may be called forth 'whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed, or the execution thereof obstructed, in any State by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of Judicial proceedings, or by the power vested in the marshals.' This imposes upon the President the sole responsibility of deciding whether the exigency has arisen which requires the use of military force, and in proportion to the magnitude of that responsibility will be his care not to overstep the limits of his legal and just authority.

"The laws referred to in the Act of 1795 are manifestly those which are administered by the judges, and executed by the ministerial officers of the courts for the punishment of crime against the United States, for the protection of rights claimed under the Federal Constitution and laws, and for the enforcement of such obligations as come within the cognizance of the Federal Judiciary. To compel obedience to these laws, the courts have authority to punish all who obstruct their regular administration, and the marshals and their deputies have the same powers as sheriffs and their deputies in the several States in executing the laws of the States. These are the ordinary means provided for the execution of the laws; and the whole spirit of our system is opposed to the employment of any other, except in cases of extreme necessity arising out of great and unusual combinations against them. Their agency must continue to be used until their incapacity to cope with the power opposed to them shall be plainly demonstrated. It is only upon clear evidence to that effect that a military force can be called into the field. Even then its operations must be purely defensive. It can suppress only such combinations as are found directly opposing the laws and obstructing the execution thereof. It can do no more than what might and ought to be done by a civil posse, if a civil posse could be raised large enough to meet the same opposition. On such occasions, especially, the military power must be kept in strict subordination to the civil authority, since it is only in aid of the latter that the former can act at all.

"But what if the feeling in any State against the United States should become so universal that the Federal officers themselves (including judges, district attorneys, and marshals) would be reached by the same influences, and resign their places? Of course, the first step would be to appoint others in their stead, if others could be got to serve. But in such an event, it is more than probable that great difficulty would be found in filling the offices. We can easily conceive how it might become altogether impossible. We are therefore obliged to consider what can be done in case we have no courts to issue judicial process, and no ministerial officers to execute it. In that event troops would certainly be out of place, and their use wholly illegal. If they are sent to aid the courts and marshals, there must be courts and marshals to be aided. Without the exercise of those functions which belong exclusively to the civil service, the laws cannot be executed in any event, no matter what may be the physical strength which the Government has at its command. Under such circumstances to send a military force into any State, with orders to act against the people, would be simply making war upon them.

"The existing laws put and keep the Federal Government strictly on the defensive. You can use force only to repel an assault on the public property and aid the Courts in the performance of their duty. If the means given you to collect the revenue and execute the other laws be insufficient for that purpose, Congress may extend and make them more effectual to those ends.

"If one of the States should declare her independence, your action cannot depend on the rightfulness of the cause upon which such declaration is based. Whether the retirement of the State from the Union be the exercise of a right reserved in the Constitution, or a revolutionary movement, it is certain that you have not in either case the authority to recognize her independence or to absolve her from her Federal obligations. Congress, or the other States in Convention assembled, must take such measures as may be necessary and proper. In such an event, I see no course for you but to go straight onward in the path you have hitherto trodden — that is, execute the laws to the extent of the defensive means placed in your hands, and act generally upon the assumption that the present constitutional relations between the States and the Federal Gevernment continue to exist, until a new code of things shall be established either by law or force.

"Whether Congress has the constitutionsal right to make war against one or more States, and require the Executive of the Federal Government to carry it on by means of force to be drawn from the other States, is a question for Congress itself to consider. It must be admitted that no such power is expressly given; nor are there any words in the Constitution which imply it. Among the powers enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 is that 'to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and to make rules concerning captures on land and water.' This certainly means nothing more than the power to commence and carry on hostilities against the foreign enemies of the nation. Another clause in the same section gives Congress the power 'to provide for calling forth the militia,' and to use them within the limits of the State. But this power is so restricted by the words which immediately follow that it can be exercised only for one of the following purposes:

To execute the laws of the Union; that is, to aid the Federal officers in the performance of their regular duties.

To suppress insurrections against the State; but this is confined by Article 4, Section 4, to cases in which the State herself shall apply for assistance against her own people.

To repel the invasion of a State by enemies who come from abroad to assail her in her own territory.

All these provisions are made to protect the States, not to authorize an attack by one part of the country upon another; to preserve the peace, and not to plunge them into civil war. Our forefathers do not seem to have thought that war was calculated 'to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.' There was undoubtedly a strong and universal conviction among the men who framed and ratified the Constitution, that military force would not only be useless, but pernicious, as a means of holding the States together.

"If it be true that war cannot be declared, nor a system of general hostilities carried on by the Central Government against a State, then it seems to follow that an attempt to do so would be ipso facto an expulsion of such State from the Union. Being treated as an alien and an enemy, she would be compelled to act accordingly. And if Congress shall break up the present Union by unconstitutionally putting strife and enmity and armed hostility between different sections of the country, instead of the domestic tranquillity which the Constitution was meant to insure, will not all the States be absolved from their Federal obligations? Is any portion of the people bound to contribute their money or their blood to carry on a contest like that?

"The right of the General Government to preserve itself in its whole constitutional vigor by repelling a direct and positive aggression upon its property or its officers cannot by denied. But this is a totally different thing from an offensive war to punish the people for the political misdeeds of their State Government, or to enforce an acknowledgment that the Government of the United States is supreme. The States are colleagues of one another, and if some of them shall conquer the rest, and hold them as subjugated provinces, it would totally destroy the whole theory upon which they are now connected.

"If this view of the subject be correct, as I think it is, then the Union must utterly perish at the moment when Congress shall arm one part of the people against another for any purpose beyond that of merely protecting the General Government in the exercise of its proper constitutional functions.

"I am, very respectfully, yours, etc.,

"J. S. BLACK."

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-27   20:50:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: nolu chan (#11)

Judge Black's opinion is interesting, reasoned, and ultimately unworkable - if the United States were to be kept together.

Truth is, Black's opinion would have blocked Lincoln from doing exactly what he did: mobilize the various state militias of the Union to create a "Grand Army of the Republic", which then went on to conquer and subjugate the seceding South.

What Black wrote at the end "The States are colleagues of one another, and if some of them shall conquer the rest, and hold them as subjugated provinces, it would totally destroy the whole theory upon which they are now connected", was essentially true in 1860. The Civil War established a new national relationship, and demonstrated that states cannot secede from the Union unless they can win their independence in battle (good luck with that).

That seems reasonable to me. When people think they can just get out of something if they don't like it, they are prone to act that way. When they realize that there is no escape no matter what, they are more inclined, I believe, to work together for mutual benefit even if they can't stand each other, because the only other option is to suffer in the muck together.

Vicomte13  posted on  2019-12-31   10:48:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: Vicomte13 (#14)

The Civil War established a new national relationship, and demonstrated that states cannot secede from the Union unless they can win their independence in battle (good luck with that).

SCOTUS did observe,

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [74 U.S. 700, 725] arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union, by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government by the States.

Mightily inconvenient to all that is the indisputable historical fact that, under the Articles of Confederation, a declared perpetual union was formed, there were thirteen (13) states in the Union, and when George Washington was inaugurated, there were eleven (11) states in the Union. The impossible happened.

The Congressional Register I, and the history therein, leave absolutely no doubt that Rhode Island and North Carolina were not members of the constitutional union for some time after it was created. In Rhode Island's case, it was more than a year. History seems to dispute indissolubility, but SCOTUS said it, and it has been the law ever since. For that kind of writing, they even put the Chief Justice on a $10,000 bill and named a bank after him.

The 14th Amendment flipped the relationship of the states and the federal government upside down. One of the basic markers of sovereignty is self-determination, and the 14th told the States who were citizens of the States. It is hard to be a truly sovereign State when a higher power decides who is a citizen of the State.

Officially the War of the Rebellion, (a/k/a The Civil War, The War of Northern Aggression, The War for Southern Independence, The War Between the States), is a judicial delight and a never ending foodfight on various websites.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-31   17:38:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: nolu chan (#19)

Absolutely. The legal arguments are long and endless.

Of course, I was a career Navy man before I was a lawyer, and it's plain as day that the South was conquered, occupied, and not allowed to vote on its own governance again until it acceded, under force, to constitutional amendments that the bulk of its people opposed. Might, not law, made right.

Interesting that, from a legal perspective, the declaration of the blockade was a mistake. From a military perspective, it was necessary. As you note, it created some legal inconveniences, particularly with respect to England and France. But once again, might made right, and the American capacity to directly threaten English interests (Canada was indefensible were the British to enter an actual shooting war with the USA) was sufficient to keep the British from intervening to benefit the "sovereign belligerent" Southern states (made so by the blockade).

To my military eyes, Lincoln did what was expedient and necessary - the legal justifications were put together to hang a paper mache fig leaf over it, but WHATEVER was necessary, Lincoln was going to do, and some legal justification would be ginned up to cover it. The law is endlessly malleable,anybody can make an argument, and, to quote John Marshall, "Conquest grants a title which the courts of the conqueror are bound to respect." In Lincoln's case, we might add "....or else."

Because the outcome is the one I prefer, I am happy to allow the legal justifications as put together to stand, but I don't really believe it. To my eyes, the Civil War was the failure of the original US Constitution, that some of the forms and norms were respected during the war, but the USA really was akin to a military dictatorship during and after the war, at least in half the country, and that that degree of unconstitutional force was absolutely necessary to reconquer the South.

The blockade, for example, could not be foregone awaiting Union recapture and closing of the Southern ports, for a resupplied South may well have been able to successfully win a war of attrition with the Union. Preserving the unity of the country was more important than respecting the Constitution, in my view, and I don't believe we DID respect the Constitution to win that war. Of course, I recognise that many legalists need to believe we did, to maintain the continuity of their belief systems, so they will fight to the end to find ways to show the constitutionality of everything the Union did.

That's why there will be endless churn in those legal chat boards about the Civil War. It's also why I won't go there. To me, it's obvious that the Union did what it took to defeat the South, and what it took exceeded the limits of the original Constitution. Of course, that does not bother me, being a pragmatist. I understand why legalists cannot accept that and fight on. It makes no difference to me, but to them, it's crucial to their belief system. Sort of like Catholics and infallibility. - for some, that the Church never changed any doctrine is fundamental to their belief, and they never will admit the changes, recharacterising them as necessary to maintain the purity they insist exists (when it obviously doesn't, to others).

Vicomte13  posted on  2020-01-02   7:31:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Vicomte13 (#20)

Of course, I was a career Navy man before I was a lawyer, and it's plain as day that the South was conquered, occupied, and not allowed to vote on its own governance again until it acceded, under force, to constitutional amendments that the bulk of its people opposed. Might, not law, made right.

Acceded is one of those terms freighted with controversy in a Civil War discussion. It is the opposite of seceded, and a Confederate argument was that as they had acceded to the Union, they had exercised their right and had seceded from the Union. There were some serious and interesting arguments made for that while Jefferson Davis awaited a trial that never came. Davis had a Dream Team of attorneys who were very motivated to assist him. Due to the legally very questionable suspension of habeas corpus in Union territories, they had been unable to assist clients during the war. They were heavily quoting the Framers and Daniel Webster, the Great Expounder. The best Union lawyers, several teams of them, cautioned against a trial, lest they lose in court, what had been won during the war. Davis refused to accept a pardon, so a general pardon was issued covering everybody, including Davis and Lee.

Interesting that, from a legal perspective, the declaration of the blockade was a mistake. From a military perspective, it was necessary.

I don't think from a military perspective a declaration of a blockade was better than a declaration a closing of the ports. That essentially would have done the same thing as far as the military was concerned. It just would have been the United States sealing off United States ports rather than the ports of a belligerent power, the Confederate States. Legally, under international law, the Confederacy gained certain legal rights they would not otherwise had enjoyed.

A blockade effectively stated they were not United States ports. It is a bit messy when combined with the post-war argument that the Confederte states never left the Union at all.

But once again, might made right, and the American capacity to directly threaten English interests (Canada was indefensible were the British to enter an actual shooting war with the USA)...

The Union had its hands full. It did not really have another army to send to Canada. There was some consideration of an invasion at the end of the war, when there was an army to do it with, but saner minds prevailed.

To my military eyes, Lincoln did what was expedient and necessary - the legal justifications were put together to hang a paper mache fig leaf over it, but WHATEVER was necessary, Lincoln was going to do, and some legal justification would be ginned up to cover it.

In WW2, the government instituted internment under the guise of necessity and the Courts, as they do in wartime, approved. The post-Civil War opinion in Ex parte Milligan excoriated the supposed Law of Necessity. Post WW2, they were critical of internment. Inter arma enim silent leges.

https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep067635/

https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep067/usrep067635/usrep067635.pdf

The Prize Cases, 67 U.S. 635 (10 March 1863) nearly led to the war being held unconstitutional. It survived a 5-4 vote during the war.

The blockade, for example, could not be foregone awaiting Union recapture and closing of the Southern ports, for a resupplied South may well have been able to successfully win a war of attrition with the Union.

Perhaps we have a different concept of what a closing of the ports is.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/221

50 U.S. Code § 221. Closing ports of entry; forfeiture of vessels seeking to enter closed port

Whenever, in any collection district, the duties on imports can not, in the judgment of the President, be collected in the ordinary way, nor in the manner provided by sections 218 [1] to 220 of this title, by reason of the cause mentioned in section 218 of this title, the President may close the port of entry in that district; and shall in such case give notice thereof by proclamation. And thereupon all right of importation, warehousing, and other privileges incident to ports of entry shall cease and be discontinued at such port so closed until it is opened by the order of the President on the cessation of such obstructions. Every vessel from beyond the United States, or having on board any merchandise liable to duty, which attempts to enter any port which has been closed under this section, shall, with her tackle, apparel, furniture, and cargo, be forfeited.

(R.S. § 5317.)

Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.

Blockade. Action taken against enemy nation so as to isolate, obstruct and prevent communications, commerce, supplies, and persons from entering into or leaving such nation. Such blockades may be by sea, or land, or both.

A nation cannot blockade itself. It requires an enemy nation (or recognized belligerent power), and that requires a state of war. In The Prize Cases, Juscice Nelson wrote a dissenting opinion which was joined by Chief Justice Taney and Justices Catron and Clifford, and concluded at 67 U.S. 698-99:

Upon the whole, after the most careful consideration of this case which the pressure of other duties has admitted, I am compelled to the conclusion that no civil war existed between this Government and the States in insurrection till recognized by the Act of Congress 13th of July, 1861; that the President does not possess the power under the Constitution to declare war or recognize its existence within the meaning of the law of nations, which carries with it belligerent rights, and thus change the country and all its citizens from a state of peace to a state of war; that this power belongs exclusively to the Congress of the United States, and, consequently, that the President had no power to set on foot a blockade under the law of nations, and that the capture of the vessel and cargo in this case, and in all cases before us in which the capture occurred before the 13th of July, 1861, for breach of blockade, or as enemies' property, are illegal and void, and that the decrees of condemnation should be reversed and the vessel and cargo restored.

Mr. Chief Justice TANEY, Mr. Justice CATRON and Mr. Justice CLIFFORD, concurred in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Nelson.

President Lincoln went on to pack the court with a tenth justice to insure against legal catastrophe.

That's why there will be endless churn in those legal chat boards about the Civil War. It's also why I won't go there. To me, it's obvious that the Union did what it took to defeat the South, and what it took exceeded the limits of the original Constitution.

I was in the endless churn about 15 to 20 years ago. I agree with your assessment. I disagree with those who argue that everything St. Abraham did was proper and lawful.

nolu chan  posted on  2020-01-02   19:45:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: nolu chan (#24)

Taney's opinion is another example of a Supreme Court decision that was ignored by Lincoln. Unlawful and necessary.

To my eyes, the problem with just "closing the ports" was that the ports wouldn't really close at all. Only warships blocking the port and seising foreign vessels could do that. And that's a blockade, no matter what one chooses to call it.

Elsewhere on these boards, there's someone egging on the idea of a new civil war in Virginia over the question of gun registration. It's as though the author WANTS that test of power, between the "armed people" and the government.

For my part, I pray that never comes, but if it does, there is no doubt in my mind that the government will win it, and the precedents set will be very bad for everybody. We've seen this movie before.

Vicomte13  posted on  2020-01-03   7:00:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: Vicomte13 (#25)

We've seen this movie before.

Good sir, but for the fact that a vocal and militant minority abjured such - temperate - sentiments, this nation would not exist.

Firearms of all kinds are flying off the shelves in most locations in the State of Virginia, and it's plain that residents of that state will not allow this shit to stand all pettifoggery aside.

One of the best comments I've seen appear this new year is up on WND today:

Amadio Viviani • 4 hours ago • edited Democrats have become anti-American in every aspect.

They adhere to a philosophy of failure, they crave power, they promote ignorance, they reject truths & provocate blame, victim hood and envy. It's inherent result is the equal sharing of misery and the responsibility to someone else.

Thank God for a real Patriot in President Trump.

randge  posted on  2020-01-03   14:08:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 29.

#30. To: randge (#29)

Good sir, but for the fact that a vocal and militant minority abjured such - temperate - sentiments, this nation would not exist.

Let me correct your statement to be historically accurate: "Good sir, but for the fact that a vocal and militant minority abjured such - temperate - sentiments, and the French Navy, this nation would not exist."

So, if Virginia goes into Civil War, who will be the French Navy to the rebels? Perhaps Iran?

Vicomte13  posted on  2020-01-03 15:56:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 29.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com