Did Jefferson Davis Just Lose the War?

Joined
Apr 17, 2020

There has never been an independent state called "America," or any variation of that name.


America is strictly the name of a continent; and the current union known as The United States of America, is simply a continental union of independent states; just as the European Union, was a union among the independent states of the continent of Europe...while the United Nations is a global union of independent states.


And the current American union was formed by the Constitution in 1788.

The independent states simply delegated powers to the union, in the manner of any such agreement among continuing independent states; just as they did under prior union they had formed under the Articles of Confederation, before they won their independence from Great Britain.

After that, they were independent states; which obviously, do not lose their sovereign independence to conjoin as larger independent states, simply by failing to expressly retain it in international compacts.

On the contrary, they must expressly manifest an intention to relinquish their independence to another state— whether joining to become part of an existing nation-state, or uniting to form a new independent nation- state; as noted in Blackstone’s influential Commentaries, that in the case of a nonconfederate, “incorporate union” such as the 1707 union of England and Scotland, no rescission option existed:


“The two contracting states are totally annihilated [qua sovereign states], without any power of revival; and a third arises from their conjunction, in which all the rights of sovereignty … must necessarily reside.”

However the precise wording in that 1707 document that united England and Scotland into the single nation of Great Britain, expressly manifested this intention. To wit:

That the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall, upon the first Day of May next ensuing the Date hereof, and for ever after, be united into one Kingdom by the Name of Great-Britain, and that the Ensigns Armorial of the said united Kingdom, be such as her Majesty shall appoint; and the Crosses of St. Andrew and St. George be conjoined in such a manner as her Majesty shall think fit, and used in all Flags, Banners, Standards, and Ensigns, both at Sea and Land.


This is because such national union can only be expressly manifested by the nations themselves.

It can never be inferred by outside interpretation; for the obvious reason that independent states are their own final authority, and hence any outside inference would be inherently void.
And this new “one Kingdom by the name of Great Britain,” was the very state from which the Founders seceded; and therefore they would naturally be the first to know the difference between national vs. international compacts.

In contrast, neither the Constitution, or any other American founding document, ever likewise expressly manifests uniting the individual independent sovereign states together, to create a single new independent nation-state, to which they would become dependent states.

Rather, the Constitution is an international compact, just as with the UN or the EU, or indeed the Articles of Confederation.

The main difference is that it was established by the respective people of each independent state, who were thus established as the supreme final authority therein; and they simply delegate various powers to state and federal governments, as detailed in the body of the Constitution.

Therefore the collective franchise-holding citizens of each state, are the national parties to the international constitution; and as James Madison explained in his 1800 Report on the Virginia Resolutions; “it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal, above their authority, to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.”
 

John S. Carter

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
The Constitution, in accordance with Madison's statements in Federalist No. 46:
I was thinking of books by noted historians who have written on this issue,The only books I have read deal with the accord that the three reached as to the capital location ,the Potomac for the assumption of states debts=Madison,Jefferson .and Hamilton
 

John S. Carter

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Independent states don't need one, and the Constitution was ratified by the people of independent states while containing no mention of what you claim.

There has never been an independent state called "America," or any variation of that name.
America is strictly the name of a continent; and the current union known as The United States of America, is simply a continental union of independent states; just as the European Union, was a union among the independent states of the continent of Europe...while the United Nations is a global union of independent states.

The independent states simply delegated powers to the union, in the manner of any such agreement among continuing independent states; just as they did under prior union they had formed under the Articles of Confederation, before they won their independence from Great Britain.

After that, they were independent states; which obviously, do not lose their sovereign independence to conjoin as larger independent states, simply by failing to expressly retain it in international compacts.
On the contrary, they must expressly manifest an intention to relinquish their independence to another state— whether joining to become part of an existing nation-state, or uniting to form a new independent nation- state; as noted in Blackstone’s influential Commentaries, that in the case of a nonconfederate, “incorporate union” such as the 1707 union of England and Scotland, no rescission option existed:

However the precise wording in that 1707 document that united England and Scotland into the single nation of Great Britain, expressly manifested this intention. To wit:

This is because such national union can only be expressly manifested by the nations themselves.
It can never be inferred by outside interpretation; for the obvious reason that independent states are their own final authority, and hence any outside inference would be inherently void.
And this new “one Kingdom by the name of Great Britain,” was the very state from which the Founders seceded; and therefore they would naturally be the first to know the difference between national vs. international compacts.
In contrast, neither the Constitution, or any other American founding document, ever likewise expressly manifests uniting the individual independent sovereign states together, to create a single new independent nation-state, to which they would become dependent states.

Rather, the Constitution is an international compact, just as with the UN or the EU, or indeed the Articles of Confederation.

The main difference is that it was established by the respective people of each independent state, who were thus established as the supreme final authority therein; and they simply delegate various powers to state and federal governments, as detailed in the body of the Constitution.

Therefore the collective franchise-holding citizens of each state, are the national parties to the international constitution; and as James Madison explained in his 1800 Report on the Virginia Resolutions; “it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal, above their authority, to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.”
This extreme states rights ended with the end of reconstruction of the South. May I recommend a book - THE SECOND FOUNDING,how the Civil War and Reconstruction remade the Constitution=Eric Foner
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
This extreme states rights ended with the end of reconstruction of the South. May I recommend a book - THE SECOND FOUNDING,how the Civil War and Reconstruction remade the Constitution=Eric Foner
Thanks, I'll stick to what really happened.
The states were never united as an independent state; notwithstanding the lies of the state shill-propagandist Eric Phony.

I was thinking of books by noted historians who have written on this issue,The only books I have read deal with the accord that the three reached as to the capital location ,the Potomac for the assumption of states debts=Madison,Jefferson .and Hamilton

That's why it's vital to understand context in order to discern the truth.
 

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Location
Midwest
...The legal relationship between the Federal government and the state, is plain...1. every state's legislature being supreme over the respective state; up until the Constitution, at which point...2. each state's legislature abdicated its final authority to the state's respective people, after proposing the Constitution to them. And...3. the people wielded this final authority independently, in opting whether to ratify the Constitution...the Constitution does not alter that fact of each state remaining independent, and its people's authority remaining final...

Playing Constitutional Lawyer is fun, we've done it here several times. But of course the history and precedents of the legal relationship between Federal and State have been more complicated and contested than can be summarily constructed into three "facts" and a postscript. It takes a real Constitutional Lawyer to unravel it. There's been no comity on the efficacy (the working details) of that relationship even today, to read the papers.

But aside from all that, please don't miss the point that the setting of this thread is "did-jefferson-davis-just-lose-the-war," meaning that the legal status between State and Federal in the Union at that time is moot here -- Davis was president of another Country.
 
Last edited:

John S. Carter

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
There has never been an independent state called "America," or any variation of that name.


America is strictly the name of a continent; and the current union known as The United States of America, is simply a continental union of independent states; just as the European Union, was a union among the independent states of the continent of Europe...while the United Nations is a global union of independent states.


And the current American union was formed by the Constitution in 1788.

The independent states simply delegated powers to the union, in the manner of any such agreement among continuing independent states; just as they did under prior union they had formed under the Articles of Confederation, before they won their independence from Great Britain.

After that, they were independent states; which obviously, do not lose their sovereign independence to conjoin as larger independent states, simply by failing to expressly retain it in international compacts.

On the contrary, they must expressly manifest an intention to relinquish their independence to another state— whether joining to become part of an existing nation-state, or uniting to form a new independent nation- state; as noted in Blackstone’s influential Commentaries, that in the case of a nonconfederate, “incorporate union” such as the 1707 union of England and Scotland, no rescission option existed:




However the precise wording in that 1707 document that united England and Scotland into the single nation of Great Britain, expressly manifested this intention. To wit:




This is because such national union can only be expressly manifested by the nations themselves.

It can never be inferred by outside interpretation; for the obvious reason that independent states are their own final authority, and hence any outside inference would be inherently void.
And this new “one Kingdom by the name of Great Britain,” was the very state from which the Founders seceded; and therefore they would naturally be the first to know the difference between national vs. international compacts.

In contrast, neither the Constitution, or any other American founding document, ever likewise expressly manifests uniting the individual independent sovereign states together, to create a single new independent nation-state, to which they would become dependent states.

Rather, the Constitution is an international compact, just as with the UN or the EU, or indeed the Articles of Confederation.

The main difference is that it was established by the respective people of each independent state, who were thus established as the supreme final authority therein; and they simply delegate various powers to state and federal governments, as detailed in the body of the Constitution.

Therefore the collective franchise-holding citizens of each state, are the national parties to the international constitution; and as James Madison explained in his 1800 Report on the Virginia Resolutions; “it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal, above their authority, to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.”
Marriage has been referred to as a UNION between a man and a women,separate in their individuality but a union of one in vow which they give to each and in front of a people who are witness to this pledge of loyalty and dedication to this UNION,They are not forced into this UNION but do it willingly,A document of union{marriage}is a legal and moral which is the certificate as a Constitution,is to a nation,no longer one state but now a UNION of two individual persons with a obligation to that other party to honor that pledge {Constitution},These individuals may in time seek seperation from this UNION but only though LEGAL means that may be sought to achieve this.The document is the legal part of this Union but the pledge that the parties have given to each is what binds to two together,The states thought their ratification of the Constitution bound each to the others with,as with a marriage vows ,promise to fulfill certain stated obligations {vow/promises].The South was a joint party to this Union ,They were in error in their method of ending this Union and Lincoln was rash in his method of forcing the South to return to this Union as a husband would be in forcing his wife to return to the marriage.The issue is did he have the right to FORCE the states back which only presuaded the other Southern states to join the seperation which they may not have.Lincoln was in a Catch twenty two position-D==n it he or D===N if he did not,He fought to save the marriage and the marriage is better for his willing to it.
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Playing Constitutional Lawyer is fun, we've done it here several times. But of course the history and precedents of the legal relationship between Federal and State have been more complicated and contested than can be summarily constructed into three "facts" and a postscript. It takes a real Constitutional Lawyer to unravel it. There's been no comity on the efficacy (the working details) of that relationship even today, to read the papers.

But aside from all that, please don't miss the point that the setting of this thread is "did-jefferson-davis-just-lose-the-war," meaning that the legal status between State and Federal in the Union at that time is moot here -- Davis was president of another Country.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say Jefferson Davis was the leader of a secessionist movement but not a country has no nation recognized the Confederacy has a nation. The Confederacy was recognized as a beligerant power which falls into a more murky legal status. For example the Confederacy can't make treaties with other nations not can their naval ships stay in a foreign port for major repairs vs the Russian Navy could stay in US ports for an indefinite stay since the US and Czarist Russia had diplomatic relations.
Leftyhunter
 

BuckeyeWarrior

Sergeant
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Location
Ohio
I would add that the Confederacy constituted a rebellion against the United States that hoped to create an independent nation. It never got that far.
Agree with you there. To actually become a country they would have had to win their rebellion, like we did. If America had lost its rebellion no one would say that America had been a country.
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Agree with you there. To actually become a country they would have had to win their rebellion, like we did. If America had lost its rebellion no one would say that America had been a country.
To be fair the Colonial Rebels became a nation when recognized by France,Spain and the Netherlands plus a lot of forigen military help. Davis of course was aware of the history of the ARW unfortunately the Geo Politcal situation had changed quite a bit in eighty plus years.
Leftyhunter
 

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Location
Midwest
My point is simply that Davis never lead an independent nation merely a secessionist movement...

I would add that the Confederacy constituted a rebellion against the United States that hoped to create an independent nation. It never got that far.

Or, it did get that far. Even as a flawed democracy, the Confederacy's declaring itself a Nation was the only requirement for it to have been a Nation. Jeff Davis was its President.

I can relate to the attempt here to try and equate legitimacy with condition, because I'm no fan of the Confederate cause either, except that I can't disrespect the soldiers, the Confederate soldiers, for considering themselves members of a Nation, their real Nation, what folks North and South were calling a Nation at the time.

Anyway in context, what "constitutes" a Nation in the 160-yrs-later hindsight of a few heritage Northerners seems less than moderately relevant, or fair.
 
Last edited:

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Or, it did get that far. Even as a flawed democracy, the Confederacy's declaring itself a Nation was the only requirement for it to have been a Nation. Jeff Davis was its President.

I can relate to the attempt here to try and equate legitimacy with condition, because I'm no fan of the Confederate cause either, except that I can't disrespect the soldiers, the Confederate soldiers, for considering themselves members of a Nation, their real Nation, what folks North and South were calling a Nation at the time.

Anyway in context, what "constitutes" a Nation in the 160-yrs-later hindsight of a few heritage Northerners seems less than moderately relevant, or fair.
Unless other nations recognized a nation has a nation then it is not a nation.
An area under rebel control is not a nation.
Leftyhunter
 

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Location
Midwest
Unless other nations recognized a nation has a nation then it is not a nation.
An area under rebel control is not a nation

I recognize your concern about legitimacy, but let's not be playing this.

Of course good people prefer that a nation be legitimate to be considered a nation, and we get it that you're a good person. Yet that's not a requirement, it's a point for subsequent International Court review. Here we have the people of the Confederacy recognizing themselves as a Nation, and lots of people in the North and elsewhere around the world calling them that besides, even now. We can't just make that go away.

To your second point, I agree that an area under rebel control is not a nation. Yet a nation under rebel control is, so what's your point there?
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
I recognize your concern about legitimacy, but let's not be playing this.

Of course good people prefer that a nation be legitimate to be considered a nation, and we get it that you're a good person. Yet that's not a requirement, it's a point for subsequent International Court review. Here we have the people of the Confederacy recognizing themselves as a Nation, and lots of people in the North and elsewhere around the world calling them that besides, even now. We can't just make that go away.

To your second point, I agree that an area under rebel control is not a nation. Yet a nation under rebel control is, so what's your point there?
Think of being a nation has part of being a club. Your not a member of the club unless other members say your a member.
Rebel movements come and go they don't get recognized as a nation until they are recognized as a nation.
For example the Colonial Rebels were just a group of Rebels until France,Span and the Netherlands said otherwise. Nothing like that for the Confederacy.
Leftyhunter
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
The Indian Nation is within The United States of America.
Which means absolutely nothing except for certain privileges granted by the US government. American Indians are subject to all federal laws and have no ability to travel to foreign countries with out a US Passport. That's not really independence.
Leftyhunter
 
Top