United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Norfolk Naval Shipyard takes down Confederate Flag
Source:
The Virginian-Pilot
URL Source: http://hamptonroads.com/2015/07/dec ... ag-flew-norfolk-naval-shipyard
Published: Jul 20, 2015
Author: Dianna Cahn
Post Date: 2015-07-20 13:11:57 by Willie Green
Keywords: None
Views: 3651
Comments: 23
PORTSMOUTH To some, it represents heritage. To others, it symbolizes racism and the subjugation of a people. Although the Confederate battle flag is steeped in military symbolism - men on both sides of that flag lost their lives over what it represented in the Civil War - there is no military policy on displaying it. In fact, one of the original flags of the Confederacy - not the most familiar one - has flown over the historical side gate of Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth since 1967. There, the Gosport Shipyard, as it was called then, served the Confederate States Navy until it was destroyed in 1862 and rebuilt under its current name. Nationwide, the glorification of the Confederate battle flag last month by the man who gunned down nine people in a South Carolina church, under a banner of white supremacism, sparked debate over whether the flag should be retired as a symbol of Southern history. In the wake of the massacre, Alabama removed the flag from its government buildings, and South Carolina followed suit. But the Defense Department says there is "no guidance that specifically discusses the display of the Confederate flag." A Navy spokesperson referred to Pentagon rules governing good order and discipline and said it falls to the commanding officer to balance that with an individual's right to free expression. A commander can bar a service member from behavior or actions that "present a clear danger to the loyalty, discipline or morale of the troops," the rule says. Further, "Military personnel must not actively advocate supremacist, extremist or criminal gang doctrine, ideology, or causes, including those that advance, encourage or advocate illegal discrimination based on race, creed, color, sex, religion ethnicity or national origin." To some, that includes this Confederate flag, too. "Due to the recent events, I would say it's offensive," said Priscilla Bonilla, a former sailor who has walked past the flag to and from work every day as a fire watch supervisor at the shipyard without ever noticing it. When it was pointed out to her, the Chesapeake resident said she doubted other people knew it was there. "If they did, I think it would be an issue," she said. "I can understand both sides because of the history. But I can see how you don't want to send a message that you support it, and if you allow it, that's what you are showing people." But not everyone sees it that way. Will Aygarn, who can trace his family farm back generations in what was then Princess Anne County, views the flag as a symbol of Virginia's proud history, not a symbol of slavery. The former sailor said he has ancestors who fought on both sides of the Civil War. On Memorial Day, Aygarn flew a Confederate flag on a telephone pole at the front of his property, but vandals recently tore it down. The 55-year-old got a ladder and put the flag higher up on the pole. "The flag means history, Princess Anne County and family heritage and Virginia's opposition to the invading federal armies," he said. "I think that Virginia's involvement in the war is nothing at all to be ashamed of." In 1861 in Savannah, Ga., Confederacy Vice President Alexander Hamilton Stephens gave what is known as the Cornerstone Speech, in which he disputed the idea that black and white races were equal. "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea," he said. "Its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical and moral truth." That sentiment was echoed by each of the Confederate states in the justification for war. Such statements are evidence that the flag symbolizes racial subjugation, says Timothy Orr, an assistant history professor at Old Dominion University. "The Confederate flag is a symbol of the Confederacy, which was founded on white supremacy," said Orr, who specializes in Civil War history. He said the flag has continued to represent that as a symbol for the Ku Klux Klan and for modern racist groups. "Throughout its history... this flag has been used as a symbol of white supremacy," he said. "I guess that's why it is such a polarizing icon." The flag flying over the gates of the shipyard is not the most-recognizable of the confederate flags, but is the original flag of the Confederacy with seven stars representing the original states that seceded. It has flown since the 200th anniversary of the shipyard in 1967 alongside an American flag, a British flag and the flag of Virginia - the "four sovereign flags flown over the shipyard gates," according to an article on Navy history on the Navy's website. One Navy official who was not authorized to discuss the issue and spoke on condition of anonymity, said it was the only Navy facility in the country displaying a Confederate flag. If Civil War sailors who fought here for the Union were alive today, Orr said, they would be appalled to see the flag outside the shipyard. But the flag is a symbol for a much deeper wound, he said, which threatens to undermine the founding principle of this country: that all men are created equal. "The government ought to take steps," he said. "If we mean to live up to that promise, something needs to be done. With all the racial incidents that happened this year, it kind of suggests the work of uniting the country still needs to be done." On Friday, following questions from The Virginian-Pilot, the Navy took a step. A spokesperson for the facility said that "with everything going on in the world" the shipyard commander, Capt. Scott Brown, ordered all four flags taken down and put in a museum "in the best interest of our workforce and the U.S. Navy." The flags had marked the shipyard's 248-year history, but times change, spokeswoman Terri Davis said. "The flags represent progress, progress in shipbuilding, progress in repair and progress in the defense of our country," Davis said. "Removing the flags from the gates doesn't diminish their historical significance, but it does allow us to focus on successful execution of our mission." On Sunday evening, a photo of four American flags at the gate was posted to the shipyard's Facebook page. The caption: "We are America's Shipyard! United we stand under one flag." Poster Comment: That filthy Confederate rag should never have been hoisted over federal property to begin with. Obama should issue an Executive Order to remove it everywhere else...
And get rid of that British rag too.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Willie Green (#0)
(Edited)
"Federal"?? It was on STATE property, Herr Greenhoffer. NOT D.C. Which other flags would you have your Fuehrer shoot down via Emperor Fiat? (Hawaii) (whoa -- the Union Jack! NOT even American) Teaxs using the Confederate flag colors...The LONE star signifying state-sovereignty.) (Washington) Using the image of George Washington: SLAVE OWNER W. Virginia -- Double whammy! Two MEN...holding GUNS) (S. Dakota's State Motto: "UNDER GOD THE PEOPLE RULE") Oooops. Go ahead, Willie. Pull all those flags down. I dare ya.
Mississippi is working on changing their own flag.
They should raise the flag of ISIS, since we are already an occupied govt of Islam....and I WISH that were sarcasm.
Obama should issue an Executive Order to remove it everywhere else... And get rid of that British rag too. Would they have to get rid of everything with Confederate ties? The most hallowed land in America is the former Custis-Lee estate, the ancestral home of Martha Dandridge Custis Lee and Robert E. Lee, where the former Custis-Lee mansion remains as a national monument under the National Park Service. The estate was purchased from the Custis-Lee family descendants in 1883.
Of course not... However, Robert E. Lee was a traitor and the National Park Service should stop designating Arlington House as his "memorial." That is an offense to all our military heros who rest in peace there. There is nothing wrong with telling the history of how this property was acquired, but Lee himself does not deserve a "monument" on these grounds.
Maybe someone should chisel your nose off. I mean it is useless to you. You can't smell liberal cat shit.
Thats funny because where are all the broken states sending their people? -->TEXAS<-- You live in a loser state with losers running losers! LOL OMG you are pathetic!
Are these traitors too? Should they all be killed or deported to another country? Should we burn all reference to their actions! Remove everything they ever did in books As a free society we allow the truth to stand and not swept under the rug like progressives want!
Robert E. Lee showed allegiance to his State of Virginia. Most military members would not take offense to being compared to Lee. As for the history of how the property was wrongfully acquired by the government, lost in court, and reacquired by the gracious sale of the Lee ancestors, I am happy to tell it. THE CUSTIS ESTATE AND THE SUPREME COURT Martha Dandridge was born on June 2, 1731 on a plantation near Williamsburg. At eighteen, Martha married Daniel Parke Custis, the wealthy owner of the 17,000 acre Custis plantation. Daniel died in 1757 when Martha was twenty-six. Their son, John Parke Custis, was three years old. Sometime later, Martha met a young colonel in the Virginia Militia. His name was George Washington. Martha married George on January 6, 1759. The marriage changed George from an ordinary planter to a wealthy landowner. George, Martha, John Parke (4), and younger sister Patsy (2) moved into Mt. Vernon. George Washington died on December 14, 1799. On May 22, 1802, Martha Dandridge Custis Washington died. She was laid to rest next to her husband at Mt. Vernon. THE CUSTIS ESTATE George Washington Parke Custis was a colonel in the United States Army. Born at Mount Airy, Maryland, on April 30, 1781, his parents were John Parke Custis and Eleanor (Calvert) Custis. After his father died, young G.W.P. Custis was raised by his grandmother Martha and her second husband, George Washington at Mount Vernon. The Custis mansion, intended as a living memorial to George Washington, was owned and constructed by the first president's adopted grandson, G.W.P. Custis, son of John Parke Custis who himself was a child of Martha Washington by her first marriage and a ward of George Washington. His house, begun in 1802 but not completed until 1817, held a collection of Washington heirlooms. George Washington Parke Custis considered calling the estate Mount Washington, but eventually adopted the name of the Custis family ancestral estate. The mansion was built on an 1,100-acre estate that Custis' father, John Parke Custis, purchased in 1778. It was designed by George Hadfield, a young English architect who was for a time in charge of the construction of the Capitol. The north and south wings were completed between 1802 and 1804. The large center section and the portico, presenting an imposing front 43 meters (140 feet) long, were finished 13 years later. In 1804, G.W.P. Custis married Mary Lee Fitzhugh. Their only child to survive infancy was Mary Anna Randolph Custis, born in 1808. George Washington Parke Custis died on October 19, 1857. His wife, Mary Fitzhugh Custis, died on April 23, 1853. They were buried in a private lot on the estate. On June 30, 1831, Mary Anna Randolph Custis married her husband Robert, son of a former three-time governor. For 30 years this mansion was their home, and six of their seven children were born there. G.W.P. Custis left the estate to his daughter Mary for her lifetime, to be passed on to the her eldest son. The estate was in need of repair and Mary's husband Robert, as executor, oversaw the improvements. THE CUSTIS ESTATE AND THE CIVIL WAR Virginia adopted an Ordinance of Secession on April 17, 1861. On April 22, 1861, Robert left his beloved home, never to return. About a month later, Mary also left, managing to send some of the family valuables off to safety. Later, many of the remaining family possessions were moved to the Patent Office for safekeeping. Some items, however, including a few of the Mount Vernon heirlooms, had already been looted and scattered. "It is better to make up our minds to a general loss. They cannot take away the remembrance of the spot, and the memories of those that to us rendered it sacred. That will remain to us as long as life will last, and that we can preserve," wrote Robert in a letter to Mary. THE CUSTIS ESTATE WRONGFULLY SEIZED In 1863 Congress levied a tax on all confiscated properties, but payment was rejected for the Custis estate. A wartime law required that owners of property in areas occupied by Federal troops appear in person to pay their taxes. The property was confiscated by the federal government when property taxes levied against the estate were not paid in person by the owner, which was Mary. The property was offered for public sale on January 11, 1864, and was purchased by a tax commissioner for "government use, for war, military, charitable and educational purposes." Brig. Gen. Montgomery C. Meigs, who commanded a wartime garrison at the estate, appropriated the grounds June 15, 1864. Intending to render the house uninhabitable should the family ever attempt to return, Gen. Meigs ordered union dead to be buried as close to the home as possible. A stone and masonry burial vault in the rose garden, 20 feet wide and 10 feet deep, and containing the remains of 1,800 Bull Run casualties, was among the first monuments to Union dead erected under Meigs' orders. Meigs himself was later buried within 100 yards of the house with his wife, father and son. Neither Mary, as title holder, nor Robert as executor, ever attempted to publicly recover control of the estate. After the death of his parents, George Washington Custis brought an action for ejectment in the Circuit Court of Alexandria County, Va. As the eldest son, he claimed that the land had been illegally confiscated and that, according to his grandfather's will, he was the legal owner. In December 1882, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, returned the property, stating that it had been confiscated without due process On March 3, 1883, the Congress purchased the property for $150,000, and it became a military reservation. AND NOW, THE REST OF THE STORY... Today the mansion, conceived as a living memorial to George Washington, looks somewhat out of place. The effort begun by General Meigs continued and the mansion is now surrounded by hundreds of thousands of graves. Originally envisioned as Mount Washington, the estate came to be named after the ancestral Custis estate, Arlington. George Washington's descendant, Mary Anna Randolph Custis married her husband Robert Edward Lee. The estate was unlawfully confiscated from the lawful owner, the wife of Robert E. Lee. Ownership was returned to the Custis family by a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court rendered on December 4, 1882. U.S. v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882) On March 3, 1883, the Congress purchased the property from George Washington Custis Lee for $150,000. On March 4, 1925, restoration of the Mansion was authorized. On August 10, 1933, it was transferred from the War Department to the National Park Service. On June 29, 1955, it was declared a permanent memorial to Robert E. Lee, with a name change to "Custis-Lee Mansion." On June 30, 1972, the mansion was restored to its historic name, Arlington House. It is the former estate of Mr. and Mrs. Robert E. Lee that became Arlington National Cemetery. Arlington House was their home. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ EPILOGUE Augusta Academy was founded in 1749. In 1776, the name was changed to Liberty Hall. Four years later the school was moved to the vicinity of Lexington, where in 1782 it was chartered as Liberty Hall Academy by the Virginia legislature and empowered to grant degrees. In 1796, George Washington saved the struggling Liberty Hall Academy when he gave the school its first major endowment- $20,000 worth of stock. The trustees promptly changed the name of the school to Washington Academy as an expression of their gratitude. General Robert E. Lee accepted the position of president of the college in 1865. During his brief presidency, Lee established the School of Law. He also inaugurated courses in journalism, which developed by 1925 into The School of Journalism - now the Department of Journalism and Mass Communications. These courses in business and journalism were the first offered in colleges in the United States. General Robert E. Lee died on October 12, 1870 and was buried on the university campus. After Lee's death in 1870, the trustees voted to change the name to Washington and Lee University. Mary Anna Randolph Custis Lee died on November 5, 1873 at the age of 66. She is buried next to her husband on the Washington & Lee campus in Lexington, Virginia. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
In December 1882, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, returned the property, stating that it had been confiscated without due process On March 3, 1883, the Congress purchased the property for $150,000, and it became a military reservation. Lee was a war criminal who should've been hung for Treason. Washington and Lee University is a private institution, no different than the Church of Scientology.
Thats priceless coming from someone that has no American family heritage prior to the civil war. LOL I have family from both sides in the uncivil war. I can speak honestly about the war but you can not. Both sides of my family were here before there was a US of A!
Actually, his state had seceded from the Union. Lincoln declared a blockade of the ports of Virginia before it had completed action to secede. A closing of the ports (as converted to in 1865) is the domestic act. By his declaration, Lincoln initiated an international act of war, recognized as such by the international community as Britain, followed by others, declared neutrality. With this came the CSA official recognition as a belligerent power, and the rights inhering thereto. The precise dates, and the precise events, of the start and end of the civil war was addressed by the United States Supreme Court in the case of The Protector, 79 U.S. 700 (1870). As such, your proposition does not have a legal leg to stand on. Moreover, after the war they strained and strained to make a case they could take to court against Jefferson Davis but failed in their every effort. The Lincoln administration had unlawfully suspended habeas corpus throughout the Union states during the war. Defense lawyers throughout the Union could do nothing to help their clients who were political prisoners. The fact of the holding of political prisoners is well documented in the Official Records of the War. The best legal minds in the Union volunteered to defend Davis, while the Southern lawyers were not yet permitted to practice law, and there has never been a Dream Team of government lawyers. It was the original Dream Team, headed by Charles O’Conor of New York. The threat of losing on the issue of secession was too great for the government to risk attempting a prosecution. This is factually incorrect. “G.W.P. Custis left the estate to his daughter Mary for her lifetime, to be passed on to the her eldest son.” The estate was left to the wife (titleholder) of Robert E. Lee (executor), to be passed on to her eldest son as heir. At the end of the U.S. Supreme Court proceedings in 1883, George Washington Custis held clear title to the estate. He did not really want the title, he wanted to prove that the estate had been taken unlawfully. He succeeded. As a matter of fact, deliberately turning the estate into an uninhabitable graveyard was a recognized war crime.
Citing the various degrees of violence and the remote pockets of the country where hostilities lasted longer than in other areas, the Court stated "that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to say on what precise day it began or terminated." Faced with such a complex factual scenario, the Court held that "[i]t is necessary, therefore, to refer to some public act of the political departments of the government to fix the dates; and, for obvious reasons, those of the executive department."' The Court decided to accept the President's determination of the issue because it lacked the capacity to reach its own decision. In other words, Lee was a war criminal.
Thats choice. Did Robert E Lee order the murder of civilians say like the real war criminal Willie "the war criminal" Sherman? If you really want to know why south despises the northern carpet baggers is because when you are lied to upon giving up war for peace and the other side sets out for retribution once one lays down their weapons of war. It just shows you who they are. If the rebels could see how things turned out you think they would have given up their arms? Not a chance. Not all northerners are evil just way too many have been propagandized that the uncivil war was about slavery and the south deserves to be destroyed and enslaved! ;)
In other words, just the opposite. The legal effect of recognizing the CSA as a belligerent power may be read here. Hans Kelsen, Principles of International Law, 1952, pp. 291-292. The legal effect is that prisoners must be treated as POWs and must not be prosecuted for high treason or murder. http://history.state.gov/milestones/1861-1865/Blockade South Recognized as a Belligerent Following the U.S. announcement of its intention to establish an official blockade of Confederate ports, foreign governments began to recognize the Confederacy as a belligerent in the Civil War. Great Britain granted belligerent status on May 13, 1861, Spain on June 17, and Brazil on August 1. Other foreign governments issued statements of neutrality. Note that Lincoln declared a blockade of North Carolina and Virginia a month before they ratified their ordinances of secession on 20 and 23 May 1861. From Gideon Welles, Lincoln and Johnson, First Paper, Galaxy Magazine, April 1872, p. 523 * * * The President reached Washington on the evening of Sunday, the 9th of April. When I called on him the next morning he was in excellent spirits, the news of Lee’s surrender, which however was not unanticipated, having been received. While I was with him he signed the proclamation for closing the ports and expressed his gratification that Mr. Seward and myself concurred in the measure, alluding to our former differences. OFFICIAL RECORDS: Series 3, vol 5, Part 1, page 107 VII. April 11, 1865.-Closing certain ports. BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A PROCLAMATION. Whereas, by my proclamations of the nineteenth and twenty-seventh days of April, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one the ports of the United States in the State of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas were declared to be subject to blockade; but whereas, the said blockade has, in consequence of actual military occupation by this Government, since been conditionally set aside or relaxed in respect to the ports of Norfolk and Alexandria, in the State of Virginia; Beaufort, in the State of North Carolina; Port Royal, in the State of South Carolina; Pensacola and Fernandina, in the State of Florida, and New Orleans, in the State of Louisiana; And whereas, by the fourth section of the act of Congress approved on the thirteenth of July, eighteen hundred and sixty- one; entitled "An act further to provide for the collection of duties on imports, and for other purposes," the President, for the reasons therein set forth, is authorized to close certain ports of entry: Now, therefore, be it known that I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, do hereby proclaim that the ports of Richmond, Tappahannock, Cherrystone, Yorktown, and Petersburg, in Virginia; of Camden (Elizabeth City), Edenton, Plymouth, Washington, New Berne, Ocracoke, and Wilmington, in North Carolina; of Charleston, Georgetown, and Beaufort, in South Carolina; of Savannah, Saint Mary's, and Brunswick (Darien), in Georgia; of Mobile, in Alabama; of Pearl River (Shieldsborough), Natchez, and Vicksburg, in Mississippi; of Saint Augustine, Key West, Saint Mark's (Port Leon), Saint John's (Jacksonville), and Apalachicola, in Florida; of Teche (Franklin), in Louisiana; of Galveston, La Salle, Brazos de Santiago (Point Isabel), and Brownsville, in Texas, are hereby closed, and all right of importation, warehousing, and other privileges shall, in respect to the ports aforesaid, cease, until they shall have again been opened by order of the President; and if, whole said ports are so closed, any ship or vessel from beyond the United States, or having on board any articles subject to duties, furniture, and cargo, shall be forfeited to the United States. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed. Done at the city of Washington this eleventh day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the eighty-ninth. Four years previously, on April 19, 1861, Lincoln had proclaimed a BLOCKADE. He invoked the Law of Nations.
The cops or their victims? The victims are martyrs. The cops are not traitors, they're violent criminals.
The "rights" according to whom? International "law"? And what is THAT? International law is might makes right. It is victor's justice.
Not in willie's mind. You fight against the established government you are a traitor.
Well, that may be true. If you fight against the established government you may well be a traitor. So what? If the government is slaughtering people or oppressing them, people ought to be traitors against it.
Government is oppressive and the more it is central controlled the more oppressive it is. It use deadly force to oppress. That means someone would be warring against government at all times.
Who cares what the Brits did... The United States wasn't a signatory to any "international law" until the formation of the League of Nations following the War to End All Wars. Besides, the Brits never recognized the Confederacy as a sovereign nation... the Civil War was strictly a domestic insurrection, not international... Lee (and Davis & Jackson) were all Traitors who should've met their fate at the end of a noose.
Besides, the Brits never recognized the Confederacy as a sovereign nation... the Civil War was strictly a domestic insurrection, not international... You are wrong on numerous counts, and your argument is supported by... nothing at all. It was not just the Brits but pretty much everybody. A blockade is strictly an international act and applies to all nations. There is no such thing as a domestic blockade where one nation blockades itself. What matters is what the U.S. did. It made an official declaration of an act of international war and the rest of the world received it as such and responded accordingly. The domestic equivalent is a "closing of the ports," not a "blockade." Your point about not being recognized as a sovereign nation is irrelevant. It is not necessary in order to become a recognized belligerent. The Civil War was declared as, but not prosecuted as, a domestic affair. I was not the great Civil Disturbance. The Constitution applies directly to civil disturbances, at Article 4, Section 4: None of the southern state executives, nor legislatures, applied for Lincoln's assistance to quell the imaginary civil disturbance. Absent such application, any invasion by troops was unconstitutional for civil purposes. http://history.state.gov/milestones/1861-1865/Blockade The Blockade of Confederate Ports, 1861–1865 Introduction During the Civil War, Union forces established a blockade of Confederate ports designed to prevent the export of cotton and the smuggling of war materiel into the Confederacy. The blockade, although somewhat porous, was an important economic policy that successfully prevented Confederate access to weapons that the industrialized North could produce for itself. The U.S. Government successfully convinced foreign governments to view the blockade as a legitimate tool of war. It was less successful at preventing the smuggling of cotton, weapons, and other materiel from Confederate ports to transfer points in Mexico, the Bahamas, and Cuba, as this trade remained profitable for foreign merchants in those regions and elsewhere. U.S. Secretary of State William Henry Seward recommended adopting the blockade shortly after the Battle of Fort Sumter in April, 1861 that marked the beginning of Civil War hostilities. Gideon Welles, the Secretary of the Navy, argued for a de facto but undeclared blockade, which would prevent foreign governments from granting the Confederacy belligerent status. President Abraham Lincoln sided with Seward and proclaimed the blockade on April 19. Lincoln extended the blockade to include North Carolina and Virginia on April 27. By July of 1861, the Union Navy had established blockades of all the major southern ports. South Recognized as a Belligerent Following the U.S. announcement of its intention to establish an official blockade of Confederate ports, foreign governments began to recognize the Confederacy as a belligerent in the Civil War. Great Britain granted belligerent status on May 13, 1861, Spain on June 17, and Brazil on August 1. Other foreign governments issued statements of neutrality. [snip] That's from the U.S. State Department, Office of Historian. All the nations declared neutrality. They do not declare neutrality in a war between a nation and its other self. The legal effect of recognizing the CSA as a belligerent power may be read here. Hans Kelsen, Principles of International Law, 1952, pp. 291-292. The legal effect is that prisoners must be treated as POWs and must not be prosecuted for high treason or murder. It is a historical fact that there were zero successful prosecutions for treason after the war. A recognized belligerent power lawfully engages in war and commerce. U.S. Const., Art. 1, Sect. 8, Cl. 10 leaves no doubt that the U.S. recognized the Law of Nations, as every birther knows, not that it has anything to do with natural born citizens. The Law of Nations and International Law are the same thing. Law of Nations is the archaic term. Whether the U.S. had signed any treaty of international law is irrelevant. Customary law applies to all nations at all times, whether they volunteer or not. In any case, the declaration of a blockade instantly invokes international maritime law. The U.S. seized foreign ships during the blockade. As for official recognition, it did happen. Sidebar: Do You Know? 3. This is the only foreign state to officially recognize the Confederacy. Answer: The duchy of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha Saxe-Coburg-Gotha acceded to the 1856 Paris Declaration on maritime law on June 9, 1856. "The USA expressed its readiness to accede to the Declaration provided it were added, with reference to privateering, that the private property of subjects or citizens of belligerent nations were exempt from capture at sea by the respective naval forces." Incidentally, on June 17, 1917 the British royal family changed its name to the House of Windsor. Prior to that, it had been the House of Saxe, Coburg & Gotha.
Don't be a double talking idiot. We didn't blockade ourselves. We were free to patrol anywhere in our own territorial waters, including those ports located in the rebellious Confederate states. And since those ports were OUR OWN TERRITORIAL WATERS, imposing a blockade upon the Confederacy and denying the Brits or French access to those ports was NOT a violation of international law. It was our RIGHT as a sovereign nation, recognized by both the Brits & the French, to defend OUR OWN territorial waters. Mere "beligerants" do NOT have legitimate territorial claims that recognized sovereign nations do.
That filthy Confederate rag should never have been hoisted over federal property to begin with.
(Misssisssipi) 
#2. To: Liberator (#1)
Hawaii should replace the Union Jack with a pineapple....
Texas is hopeless... boot them out of the union and admit Puerto Rico instead.
The rest are OK.
#3. To: Willie Green (#0)
#4. To: Willie Green (#0)
That filthy Confederate rag should never have been hoisted over federal property to begin with.
#5. To: nolu chan (#4)
Would they have to get rid of everything with Confederate ties?
#6. To: Willie Green (#5)
#7. To: Willie Green (#2)
Texas is hopeless... boot them out of the union and admit Puerto Rico instead.
#8. To: Willie Green (#5)
However, Robert E. Lee was a traitor
taught to propagandized kids?
#9. To: Willie Green (#5)
However, Robert E. Lee was a traitor and the National Park Service should stop designating Arlington House as his "memorial." That is an offense to all our military heros who rest in peace there. There is nothing wrong with telling the history of how this property was acquired, but Lee himself does not deserve a "monument" on these grounds.
#10. To: nolu chan (#9)
Neither Mary, as title holder, nor Robert as executor, ever attempted to publicly recover control of the estate.
Since he had both renounced the Constitution and abandoned claim to the property, it's fitting that Congress didn't provide compensation during his lifetime. However, I have no problem providing due process for his heirs, if for no other reason than to assure that they have no claim on the property in perptuity.
It's a free country and you can't control the delusional beliefs of kooks.
#11. To: Willie Green (#10)
Lee was a war criminal who should've been hung for Treason.
#12. To: Willie Green (#10)
Lee was a war criminal who should've been hung for Treason.
The proclamation of intended blockade by the President may therefore be assumed as marking the first of these dates, and the proclamation that the war had closed as marking the second. But the war did not begin or close at the same time in all the states. There were two proclamations of intended blockade: the first of the 19th of April, 1861, embracing the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas; the second of the 27th of April, 1861, embracing the States of Virginia and North Carolina; and there were two proclamations declaring that the war had closed, one issued on the 2d of April, 1866, embracing the States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, and Arkansas, and the other issued on the 20th of August, 1866, embracing the State of Texas.
Since he had both renounced the Constitution and abandoned claim to the property, it's fitting that Congress didn't provide compensation during his lifetime. However, I have no problem providing due process for his heirs, if for no other reason than to assure that they have no claim on the property in perptuity.
#13. To: nolu chan (#12)
The precise dates, and the precise events, of the start and end of the civil war was addressed by the United States Supreme Court in the case of The Protector,
#14. To: Willie Green (#13)
In other words, Lee was a war criminal.
#15. To: Willie Green (#13)
In other words, Lee was a war criminal.
U.S. State Department
Office of the Historian Mr. Seward, who had been uneasy since his return, [nc: Seward had been thrown from his carriage and injured] read to the Secretary of the Treasury and myself the draft of a proclamation he had prepared for the President to sign, closing the ports of the Southern States. This was a step which I had earnestly pressed at the beginning of the rebellion, as a domestic measure, and more legitimate than a blockade, which was international, and an admission that we were two nations.
(Union Letters, Orders, Reports)
#16. To: Justified (#8)
Are these traitors too?
#17. To: nolu chan (#12)
With this came the CSA official recognition as a belligerent power, and the rights inhering thereto.
#18. To: Vicomte13, Willie Green (#16)
The victims are martyrs.
#19. To: Justified (#18)
#20. To: Vicomte13 (#19)
If the government is slaughtering people or oppressing them, people ought to be traitors against it.
#21. To: nolu chan (#15)
Hans Kelsen, Principles of International Law, 1952, pp. 291-292.
#22. To: Willie Green (#21)
Who cares what the Brits did... The United States wasn't a signatory to any "international law" until the formation of the League of Nations following the War to End All Wars.
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
U.S. Department of State
Office of the Historian To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
SOURCE: North & South, Volume 7, Number 3, May 2004, Page 87
#23. To: nolu chan (#22)
There is no such thing as a domestic blockade where one nation blockades itself.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]