Is the US Declaration of Independence illegal?

124»

Replies

  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,158 Senior Member
    Teach wrote: »
    That's not surprising. You've been spoon-fed the sanitized version of the war the winning side of the conflict has allowed to be recorded in the history books, and you've gobbled it down and asked for seconds. In a way, the rewritten history of this nation's most massive trauma has followed the same basic format as the holocaust deniers are using now- - - - -teach several generations of students enough blatant lies, and eventually the truth will cease to exist. The winners of wars write the the history books, and one of the first casualties is the truth.
    Jerry

    If that's the case I welcome your enlightenment...btw I also spent 8 of my first 12 years south of the mason Dixon line and my grandfather was from TN. I don't really have a dog in this fight or a strong opinion either way.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • snake284-1snake284-1 Senior Member Posts: 2,500 Senior Member
    Teach wrote: »
    One huge mistake was the south's failure to take Washington DC after the first battle of Manassas/Bull Run, depending on which side's name you prefer to use. The Washington elite were on hand, sort of like a party atmosphere, to watch the rebels take a whipping, and when it turned into a rout by the south, a lot of them probably had to change their fancy underpants!
    Jerry

    Man that's right on for sure, and such an obvious mistake! Why? Why did they leave that golden goose be??? They could have rode into town on a Budweiser Wagon. That would have won it right then and there. What were they thinkin'?
    I'm Just a Radical Right Wing Nutt Job, Trying to Help Save My Country!
  • woodsrunnerwoodsrunner Senior Member Posts: 2,725 Senior Member
    Thanks for posting this website, shush! It gives me a whole new area to explore. Notice how your original Post has again brought up what we Southerners call TWBTS? At first you might think that the Thread has gone Off-Topic, but that's not the case. It's all the same conflict, IMO, and it also goes back to the English Civil War of the 1640's, and even further back to the Peasants Rebellion of 1381 and Walter Tyler (if I remember the years right!)

    The era of the American Revolution is an awesome period of study! Many of us don't realize it-it isn't taught in our schools-but there were many,many influential Englishmen of the period who urged peaceful resolution with the American Colonies. King George's Brother, for example, (forget his name) who was a very advanced Freemason pleaded with the King to apply the principals of Freemasonry to the "situation"-to no avail-and other senior military leaders who also tried to influence the King and Parliment, but nothing could or would sway the financial aspects of dealing with the Colonies.

    I think what we are seeing here in this Thread, or Topic, is very typical of how these discussions will always go. We loose sight of the deeper reasons of why these things happen and get hung up, so to speak, in concentrating on details! "Gen. Lee made a fatal mistake by not advancing on Washington after Manassas, etc, billy boy sherman was a first class SOB, etc," (if any of us has a right to THIS opinion, I do! My family DIRECTLY felt sherman's criminal wrath through the hands of a Capt. Jones, 1st Ohio Vol Artillery on the night of 18 August '64). But even if we get off on a tangent from the original point of discussion, it's always interesting and gives us reasons to think!
  • shushshush Senior Member Posts: 6,260 Senior Member
    ..... even further back to the Peasants Rebellion of 1381 and Walter Tyler (if I remember the years right!)

    Spot on date wise, Rich.:up:


    Wat Tyler and the Peasants Revolt

    ‘Things appear to have come to a head when in May 1381 a tax collector arrived in the Essex village of Fobbing to find out why the people there had not paid their poll tax. The villagers appear to have taken exception to his enquiries and promptly threw him out.
    The following month, the 15-year-old King Richard II sent in his soldiers to re-establish law and order. But the villagers of Fobbing metered out the same unceremonious treatment to them
    More than 60,000 people are reported to have been involved in the revolt…
    Joined by other villagers from all corners of the southeast of England, the peasants decided to march on London in order to plead their case for a better deal before their young king.
    The rebels entered London….. Wat Tyler seems to have lost control of some of his ‘pleasure seeking’ peasants. With some falling foul to the power of the demon drink, looting and murder are reported to have taken place. In particular however, the peasants targeted their hatred at the lawyers and priests of the city.

    The next day Richard met Wat Tyler and his hardcore of Kentish rebels again, this time at Smithfield,…… Lord Mayor, Sir William Walworth, apparently angered by Wat Tyler’s arrogant attitude to the king and his even more radical demands, drew his dagger and slashed at Tyler. Badly injured with a knife wound in his neck, Tyler was taken to nearby St Bartholomew’s Hospital.
    …..Thanks to Walworth’s orders, the knife wound in Tyler’s neck was extended, which had the effect of removing his head just a few inches above the shoulders!’
    http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/Wat-Tylerthe-Peasants-Revolt/


    Change the dates, names and locations and the similarities’ are certainly there, high taxation, weak king, a populous ‘re-evaluate their worth’

    The right or wrong? Written by history.

    cjp wrote: »..... Oh dear God, I've admitted to liking something Limey.I'll never hear the end of this.

    Jayhawker wrote: »...But seriously Shush....

    Big Chief wrote: ».........walking around with a greasy butt ain't no fun, though!

     


     

  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,141 Senior Member
    The study of history is a fascinating thing, and the politicians who fail to make an in-depth examination of it tend to repeat their predecessors' mistakes- - - - -with surprisingly similar results, no matter in which century the mistake happens to be made. Sadly, a few of them manage to survive the process of their enlightenment!
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • bruchibruchi Senior Member Posts: 2,582 Senior Member
    Not a scholar on the subject so please excuse the probably stupid question...did the second amendment, the right to bear arms, apply to slaves and Native Americans?
    If this post is non welcomed, I can always give you a recipe for making "tostones".
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,141 Senior Member
    bruchi wrote: »
    did the second amendment, the right to bear arms, apply to slaves and Native Americans?

    Not at the time it was written, since neither group was considered to be "citizens". Later Supreme Court decisions extended the 2nd. Amendment guarantees to blacks, (Dred Scott, maybe?)- - - -not sure about when Indians got the same guarantees.

    Edit: After doing a little research, it appears the Dred Scott decision did not address gun rights- - - -just the legitimacy of slavery at the time the decision was made. The 14th. Amendment appears to include recognizing 2nd. Amendment rights as well as others for all natural-born and naturalized citizens. I presume that the various peace treaties with indian nations might have addressed gun rights, but I don't have any information on that.
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • woodsrunnerwoodsrunner Senior Member Posts: 2,725 Senior Member
    From what I know/remember from researching other topics, and don't ask me to cite specific references because this was many years ago.....

    Slaves in the slave holding states were not allowed to own firearms of any type. Slave holders could and did allow, usually older men, the priviledge of "borrowing" a smoothbore muzzleloader to hunt with around the plantation or close vicinity, but Law prohibited the slave from owning the firearm. In a recent related discussion here on Guns and Ammo I pointed out that during Reconstruction the Freedmens Bureau channeled many bored out to smoothbore .58cal muskets to former slaves primarily as a means of putting small game on the table. This should be very easy to document. These weapons had to be smoothbores by law. During Reconstruction even Southern white men and especially former Confederate military personnel were prohibited by federal law from having rifled pieces, but I doubt if this law was ever enforced to a strong degree. I do know from research that when my own GGgrandfather, a former Capt. in the 44th Georgia Vols. was charged as one of the three principal leaders of the "Great Election Riot of Barbour, County Alabama" in late 1873 (easily researched/documented on the Web) that part of the charges involved the use of "captured" 1873 trap door muskets taken from Union soldiers guarding the 2 polling stations, but this was defeated in the later court trial since it was proven that the Quote "New Fangled Break-Open Shotgun" was used to disarm the soldiers and in the subsequent shootings which took 18 lives.

    Indian ownership I'm sure varied over time and maybe location. Remember, most firearms that Indians owned were trade items from white traders doing business in Indian areas. I do know that in the Carolina Colonies and the Georgia Colony that trading RIFLED pieces with Indians was absolutely illegal, but was only enforced in a lack-luster manner. But remember.....even from early Colonial Times firearms traded with Indians was almost 100% smoothbore "trade guns" originating in England and France primarily. A recent well documented book, "Deer Skins and Duffels" covering the Indian trade for deer hides in Georgia, Florida and the Carolinas cites the illegal side of trading rifled pieces with the Creeks, Cherokees and Chickasaws. Other areas of the present USA I don't know about. Hope this helps.....
124»
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.