The States are nations

[Originalist]

It's amazing what one will find if they crack a book....


It's amazing what one will find when he will pick up a history book...

Also, on the international level under the Law of Nations, each nation-State became vested with "territorial sovereignty" (title and dominion) to the lands and waters within its borders. As cited in the arguments of Martin v. Waddell's Lessee, 41 U.S. 367 (1842):

As stated by Justice Taney in Martin v. Waddell's Lessee:

Eventually, in the 1783 "Treaty of Paris," England recognized the separate political and territorial sovereignty of each individual State:

"

The treaty itself was ratified by several states separately from the Congress, and in New Hampshire it was ratified by individual towns. (Ref.: Forrest McDonald, E Pluribus Unum, Liberty Fund, c 1965.)

A later Supreme Court decision in M'Llvaine v. Coxe's Lessee, 4 Cranch 209 (1808), held that this Treaty only had the effect of establishing the recognition of one country to the sovereignty of the States, which had actually existed since their independence in 1776:

.

[Originalist]

A SCOTUS Justice refers to Virginia as a "nation"....


As stated by Justice Chase in Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. 199 (1796) 3 U.S. 199 (Dall.):

"In June 1776, the Convention of Virginia formally declared, that Virginia was a free, sovereign, and independent state; and on the 4th of July, 1776, following, the United States, in Congress assembled, declared the Thirteen United Colonies free and independent states; and that as such, they had full power to levy war, conclude peace, etc. I consider this as a declaration, not that the United Colonies jointly, in a collective capacity, were independent states, etc. but that each of them was a sovereign and independent state, that is, that each of them had a right to govern itself by its own authority, and its own laws, without any control from any other power upon earth.

"Before these solemn acts of separation from the Crown of Great Britain, the war between Great Britain and the United Colonies, jointly, and separately, was a civil war; but instantly, on that great and ever memorable event, the war changed its nature, and became a PUBLIC war between independent governments; and immediately thereupon ALL the rights of public war (and all the other rights of an independent nation) attached to the government of Virginia; and all the former political connection between Great Britain and Virginia, and also between their respective subjects, were totally dissolved; and not only the two nations, but all the subjects of each, were in a state of war; precisely as in the present war between Great Britain and France. Vatt. Lib. 3. c.18,s.292. to 295. lib.3.c. 5.s.70.72 and 73.

"From the 4th of July, 1776, the American States were de facto, as well as de jure, in the possession and actual exercise of all the rights of independent governments...."

[Originalist]

From one of the earliest text books published on the subject of American Government:



According to St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries: With Notes of Refernce to The Constitution and Laws of the Federal Government of the United States; and the Commonwealth of Virginia, William Young Birch, and Abraham Small; Philadelphia, c 1803. "View of the Constitution of the United States, Section 1"

"...From the moment of the revolution they became severally independent and sovereign states, possessing all the rights, jurisdictions, and authority, that other sovereign states, however constituted, or by whatever title denominated, possess; and bound by no ties but of their own creation, except such as all other civilized nations are equally bound by, and which together constitute the customary law of nations. A common council of the colonies, under the name of a general congress, had been established by the legislature, or rather conventional authority in the several colonies. The revolutionary war had been begun, and conducted under its auspices; but the first act of union which took place among the states after they became independent, was the confederation between them, which was not ratified until March 1781, near five years from the commencement of their independence....

"The federal government, then, appears to be the organ through which the united republics communicate with foreign nations, and with each other. Their submission to its operation is voluntary: its councils, its sovereignty is an emanation from theirs, not a flame by which they have been consumed, nor a vortex in which they are swallowed up. Each is still a perfect state, still sovereign, still independent, and still capable, should the occasion require, to resume the exercise of its functions, as such, in the most unlimited extent.

"But until the time shall arive when the occasion requires a resumption of the rights of sovereignty by the several states (and far be that period removed when it should happen) the exercise of the rights of sovereignty by the states, individually, is wholly suspended, or discontinued, in the cases before mentioned: nor can that suspension ever be removed, so long as the present constitution remains unchanged, but by the dissolution of the bonds of union. An event which no good citizen can wish, and which no good, or wise administration will ever hazard."[11]

Now contrast everything you've just read with what Abe Lincoln said as his justification for war and you will understand fully what the South fought for.

Having never been States, either in substance, or in name, outside of the Union, whence this magical omnipotence of “State rights,’’ asserting a claim of power to lawfully destroy the Union itself? Much is said about the “sovereignty’’ of the States; but the word, even, is not in the national Constitution; nor, as is believed, in any of the State constitutions. What is a “sovereignty,’’ in the political sense of the term? Would it be far wrong to define it “A political community, without a political superior’’? Tested by this, no one of our States, except Texas, ever was a sovereignty. And even Texas gave up the character on coming into the Union; by which act, she acknowledged the Constitution of the United States, and the laws and treaties of the United States made in pursuance of the Constitution, to be, for her, the supreme law of the land. The States have their status IN the Union, and they have no other legal status. If they break from this, they can only do so against law, and by revolution. The Union, and not themselves separately, procured their independence, and their liberty. By conquest, or purchase, the Union gave each of them, whatever of independence, and liberty, it has. The Union is older than any of the States; and, in fact, it created them as States. Originally, some dependent colonies made the Union; and, in turn, the Union threw off their old dependence, for them, and made them States, such as they are. Not one of them ever had a State constitution, independent of the Union. Of course, it is not forgotten that all the new States framed their constitutions, before they entered the Union; nevertheless, dependent upon, and preparatory to, coming into the Union.

Now compare Lincoln to Hitler...

Listen to the words of the mad man Hitler and think about what is happening in our country today.....

“National Socialism as a matter of principle, must lay claim to the right to force its principles on the whole German nation without consideration of previous federated state boundaries, and to educate in its ideas and conceptions. Just as the churches do not feel bound and limited by political boundaries, no more does the National Socialist idea feel limited by the individual state territories of our fatherland. The National Socialist doctrine is not the servant of individual federated states, but shall some day become the master of the German nation. It must determine and reorder the life of a people, and must, therefore, imperiously claim the right to pass over [state] boundaries drawn by a development we have rejected”

[Esaias]

Hey, Josh Duggar is getting sued! Did ya hear bout that?

On a serious note, you are correct. Which is why the Federalists have been busy non stop ever since 1789 trying to convince us all that we are "one nation", a SINGLE republic, ignoring the plain and obvious meaning of the word "union"...

But this is waaaay over most peoples' heads, they are too busy downloading the latest Google app.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Hey, Josh Duggar is getting sued! Did ya hear bout that?

On a serious note, you are correct. Which is why the Federalists have been busy non stop ever since 1789 trying to convince us all that we are "one nation", a SINGLE republic, ignoring the plain and obvious meaning of the word "union"...

But this is waaaay over most peoples' heads, they are too busy downloading the latest Google app.

I remember the day well when as a very young man I got this feeling that I needed to stop listening to the official versions of history and start studying for myself.

[Disciple4life]

Originally Posted by Originalist

I remember the day well when as a very young man I got this feeling that I needed to stop listening to the official versions of history and start studying for myself.

That will not be allowed here! Next you will say people need to use the brain that God gave them and think for themselves.

That is CRAZY TALK!!!

[Jito463]

Originalist, while I agree with much of what you said in principle, the comparison of Lincoln to Hitler is bordering on self-parody. Lincoln was not some genocidal maniac.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Jito463

Originalist, while I agree with much of what you said in principle, the comparison of Lincoln to Hitler is bordering on self-parody. Lincoln was not some genocidal maniac.

No, just a typical dictator in bed with European communists.

[Disciple4life]

Originally Posted by Jito463

Originalist, while I agree with much of what you said in principle, the comparison of Lincoln to Hitler is bordering on self-parody. Lincoln was not some genocidal maniac.

You can label President Lincoln however you like.

The facts are that 600,000 people died because President Lincoln would not allow anybody to secede from the Union.

That is both Northerners and Southerners.

A few misconceptions of the South are that-

We wanted to secede. We did not want to secede. (We felt that our votes were not being counted and that the government was rigging the system so that we would no longer have a say in future policies)

We wanted to fight the North. We did not want war. We were perfectly happy seceding and minding our own business. (Many northerners didn't want war either. President Lincoln didn't care what the people wanted North or South he was not going to be the President that LET the South secede. President Lincoln was more worried about his legacy than human life)

We are still fighting this war today. Nope, we admit the North won. Plain and Simple. We are Americans, we just want history taught fairly and from both sides, not slanted that ALL southerners are racist who want to reinstall slavery today.

Other facts that should be brought up-

By the time of the Civil War it was illegal to import new slaves into the United States.

Their were slaves in the North.

Northern states has laws that black people could not move into their states.

Northerners had laws to repress free black people that already lived their.

Back to President Lincoln. He knew all throughout the war that that the death toll was rising on both sides.

He held to his principle that war was the only solution. He would not compromise or have peace talks.

Oh and one other nice little fact that everybody might not know President Lincoln ordered the assassination of Jefferson Davis. It did not succeed.

[Fionn mac Cumh]

I am not sure if GW did this, but it seems that the current administration is threatening to withhold Fed money for various things from the states if they dont comply with their laws. So I guess I am wondering what would happen if a state just didnt comply with a law that the feds passed. What would happen?