Subject: Re: Government Censored History
From: HornedReaper@rocketmail.com
Date: 1998/03/17
Message-ID: <6els33$5cp$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
Newsgroups: soc.history
In article <6el4dv$5du$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
jthunderbird@nternet.com wrote:
(snip snip)
Nations come and go, such is history.
The Seminoles of Florida btw moved into Flordia after the Europeans
had arrived in Florida, the Seminoles were able to migrate into Florida
because all the previous Indians had died or diease and/or taken
by the Spanish for slave labour.
Spain took Florida from one group and then later sold what they took
to the US, that in the middle some tribes moved into Spainish Florida
means little.
All nations are founded upon conquest. Such are the facts. If one really
wanted too one could go back further and further until every modern nation
& state is invalidated legally speaking.
---Oscar Schlaf---
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Subject: Re: Government Censored History
From: "Vagor" <daveshoup@worldnet.att.net>
Date: 1998/03/17
Message-ID: <6elv9k$r5@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>
Newsgroups: soc.history
[Subscribe to soc.history] 
[More Headers]
> Nations come and go, such is history.
<snip>
> Spain took Florida from one group and then later sold what they took
>to the US, that in the middle some tribes moved into Spainish Florida
>means little.
> All nations are founded upon conquest. Such are the facts. If one really
>wanted too one could go back further and further until every modern nation
>& state is invalidated legally speaking.
Right. By picking western Florida, Johnny is wisely choosing the softer
target, where some bizarre combination of white guilt and political
expediency might send a few $$$ his way if he proves legally annoying
enough, but probably not.
What would happen if he took his claim of ancestral ownership to South
Florida? The new occupiers don't feel guilty. Johnny is too late! The
dispossessers are now the dispossessed.
Who would a North African sue to get "his" land back? Carthage? Rome? The
Vandals? Byzantium? Islam? The French? This only names some recent
co-defendants.
Commandant Thunderbird has some interesting theories, especially regarding
infinity and the granularity of time (it is composed of chronons).
So, the Seminoles were one of the granules, as were the Spanish, the French,
the USA, the Cubans, and whoever's next (and previous). The size of "your"
granule is dependent on your determination and your ability to prevail over
neighboring granules, over finite time. As finite gravity acts on the finite
universe of matter, granules are sifted and settle. Described in four
dimensions, human history is a beaker of chronon-clusters, and everybody is
in there somewhere. Thanks to the linearity of finite time, the mess cannot
be unsifted.
Article Segment 1 of 2
In article <6elv9k$r5@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
"Vagor" <daveshoup@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
> > Nations come and go, such is history.
> <snip>
>
> > Spain took Florida from one group and then later sold what they took
> >to the US, that in the middle some tribes moved into Spainish Florida
> >means little.
> > All nations are founded upon conquest. Such are the facts. If one really
> >wanted too one could go back further and further until every modern nation
> >& state is invalidated legally speaking.
>
> Right. By picking western Florida, Johnny is wisely choosing the softer
> target, where some bizarre combination of white guilt and political
> expediency might send a few $$$ his way if he proves legally annoying
> enough, but probably not.
Dave, neither you nor Oscar picked up on the subtlety that the Republic
of West Florida ain't in Florida. The capital was established at Baton Rouge.
The land involved includes the Florida Parishes of Louisiana, you might see
as the toe of the boot, and also the panhandles of Mississippi, Alabama and
Florida, to the Apalachicola River. The heartland, in short, of the Deep
South. It includes the land known in pre-frontier time as the Creek Corridor,
or Creek Alley, which I believe to have been guaranteed to the Muskogee, of
the Five Civilized Tribes by European powers for Native access to the Gulf,
to enable the continuation of Native commerce on this continent. All the
details of the early history have been snipped from the history books by
deliberate policy of the United States, for which you seem blythely
unconcerned for a participant in a history group.
>
> What would happen if he took his claim of ancestral ownership to South
> Florida? The new occupiers don't feel guilty. Johnny is too late! The
> dispossessers are now the dispossessed.
>
There is no ancestral land claim involved in the present discussion. The
dispute is between Constitutions: the West Florida Constitution which was
ratified, and the United States which was not. The issue is one of legal
theory, whether the republican form of government is valid, or whether it
merely serves as a mask for imperialism.
The school books all say that West Florida invited the United States to
come in and take over. When I found the declaration of war of West Florida
on the United States, it made me doubt that assertion.
The United States sovereignty on the Gulf Coast is not legitimate, which
gives me the perfect right to peal out the challenge to such jurisdiction.
The difference in the North African cases you listed, is that they do not
claim to be based on free association of the governed in contract with one
another to govern themselves. This point also seems to be too subtle for
you and Oscar to grasp. Or maybe you just don't care, as long as the trains
run on time.
While the United States does pretend to be founded on the republican
principle of government, which also happens to be the theoretical
foundation for practically every other government in the modern world,
it will have to answer to its crime against the citizens of West Florida.
The United States stole our land and lied about it, and 188 years later
the lie is still happening.
> Commandant Thunderbird has some interesting theories, especially regarding
> infinity and the granularity of time (it is composed of chronons).
>
> So, the Seminoles were one of the granules, as were the Spanish, the French,
> the USA, the Cubans, and whoever's next (and previous). The size of "your"
> granule is dependent on your determination and your ability to prevail over
> neighboring granules, over finite time. As finite gravity acts on the finite
> universe of matter, granules are sifted and settle. Described in four
> dimensions, human history is a beaker of chronon-clusters, and everybody is
> in there somewhere. Thanks to the linearity of finite time, the mess cannot
> be unsifted.
Article Segment 1 of 2
jthunderbird@nternet.com wrote
>Dave, neither you nor Oscar picked up on the subtlety that the Republic
>of West Florida ain't in Florida....All the
>details of the early history have been snipped from the history books by
>deliberate policy of the United States, for which you seem blythely
>unconcerned for a participant in a history group.
Johnny, I most certainly did pick up on that. I construed your inclusion of
your home page as an invitation to visit it, and did so. I read (skimmed)
the document you cite, which begins by listing the parishes.
I did not find any declaration of war, nor did I find any documentation of
the source or authenticity of either of these claims. It may exist; the
burden of producing them is on you. If the government has successfully
rewritten the history of this epoch and expunged all references to it
(despite their obvious inability to suppress far more embarassing
revelations), and if you are serious about your claims, I should think you
would produce every scrap of evidence supporting your view. Many breaches of
faith by the US government with Indian treaties are well-documented, so why
didn't the Bureau of Historical Snippery edit these too? There must be
abundant historical evidence if you dig for it.
My point was that you are not going to get this land back. If your intent is
to get a tasty $$$ settlement, have at it. Every ethnic group imaginable is
whining about some transgression in the past for which they feel due some
compensation; I attempted to illustrate the futility of such claims.
I can't speak for Oscar (he seems rather involved right now) but I really am
unconcerned, and indeed blithe, when I hear these claims on a daily basis,
without supporting documentation. If you could prove any of it, I would be
interested. I don't know how could concerned I would be. The participants
would still be long dead. How concerned are you about the dispossession and
relocation of the Acadians?
>The issue is one of legal
>theory, whether the republican form of government is valid, or whether it
>merely serves as a mask for imperialism.
There is a long, proud history of imperialism by republics. The two are not
mutually exclusive, and one does not invalidate the other. From Athens to
England (and the US), this is well-documented.
>The school books all say that West Florida invited the United States to
>come in and take over. When I found the declaration of war of West Florida
>on the United States, it made me doubt that assertion.
>
>The United States sovereignty on the Gulf Coast is not legitimate, which
>gives me the perfect right to peal out the challenge to such jurisdiction.
>The difference in the North African cases you listed, is that they do not
>claim to be based on free association of the governed in contract with one
>another to govern themselves. This point also seems to be too subtle for
>you and Oscar to grasp. Or maybe you just don't care, as long as the trains
>run on time.
No one is challenging your right to peal. And the similarity in the North
African cases I cite is that they are all documented "changes of hands" of a
piece of real estate. Ownership of land is one of those de factos that no
amount of whining will undo. How far back are you willing to go, before your
claim is ridiculous? Written, contractual representative arrangements are
relatively rare in the total history of the world- and what difference does
it make to the dispossessed? Screwed is screwed.
>While the United States does pretend to be founded on the republican
>principle of government, which also happens to be the theoretical
>foundation for practically every other government in the modern world,
>it will have to answer to its crime against the citizens of West Florida.
>The United States stole our land and lied about it, and 188 years later
>the lie is still happening.
Subject: Re: Government Censored History
From: jthunderbird@nternet.com
Date: 1998/03/21
Message-ID: <6f0viq$e60$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
Newsgroups: soc.history
In article <6eu1q6$f2r@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
"Vagor" <daveshoup@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> the burden of producing them is on you.
Here are the citations you requested.
The War Powers Act, which I referred to loosely as a declaration of war,
is the penultimate stanza of Day of Infamy in my post, starting with
whereas. It is also available in my verse Fallen Scepter at
http://www.oocities.org/~jthunderbird/scepter.html
That sentence is possibly the premier example of an open-ended law.
It doesn't give any limits to the Executive disposition of the armed
forces, nor set a time period, conventionally leaving it open for the
duration of the conflict. It was enacted by the Senate and Assembly
in emergency joint session on December 10, 1810.
You have presumed to put the burden for the production of these documents
on me, after reading the post in which I explained they're hard to get.
I will tell you exactly where they are, which may or may not help you.
They are in the Library of Congress, documents divsion, West Florida
Collection, file #16641 reel 4, available only on microfilm. They are not even
mentioned on the Library of Congress web site.
One book was published, The West Florida Rebellion by Stanley Clisby
Arthur, 1935, I believe by the St. Francisville Democrat, reissued
by Claitor's of Baton Rouge in 1975, which has the text of the
Declaration of Independence quoted. His focus is the successful
assault on the Spanish fort at Baton Rouge, a tale to glorify heroes.
Significantly, Arthur does not speak of having seen the Constitution in
the documents available to him, as a WPA employee. He drops the
narrative at the point US troops cross the river into West Florida,
without mentioning any further legislation by the General Assembly.
Professor Isaac Jocelyn Cox published The West Florida Controversy
in 1919, but his contribution is of limited value because he didn't
know the West Florida Papers even existed. They were still secret
at that time, obviously.
There was an unpublished doctoral dissertation presented at the
University of Texas, Austin, June, 1939, by Grady Daniel Price,
entitled The United States and West Florida. It raises serious
questions about the United States role in the invasion, and decimates
the tenuous US legal position as it is based Madison's Proclamation,
but fails to address what I see as the core issues. It does not
contain the Constitution, but I believe that document may have been available
to the author.
The Louisiana Historical Quarterly has published some primary documents
including the Minutes of the Assembly and Senate; this journal would
probably be your best bet to get started, particularly contributions
by James A. Padgett in the early 70's.
That's about it. The West Florida Papers were maintained in a secret
archive in the State Department until being moved to the Library of
Congress by the WPA in about 1935. Theoretically, you may say the
papers were "declassified" at that time, after 125 years of total
secrecy, but effectively they are still hidden. I certainly had no
luck trying to get them published in 1977 and thereafter. I have
introduced certain of these documents into court records, as citeable
references for future legal actions, but it might be contrary to my
interests to elaborate on that aspect.
The documents are quite authentic. Please do not blame me that they
are not very accessible; that is what I came here to tell you.
Johnny Thunderbird
Colonel Commandant
West Florida Militia
heavyLight Books http://www.oocities.org/~jthunderbird
the Sorceror's Web Page http://www.nternet.com/~jthunderbird
--------------------------------------
In history, theories prove nothing. A. Le Plongeon
Queen Moo and the Egyptian Sphinx
Subject: Re: Government Censored History
From: "Vagor" <daveshoup@worldnet.att.net>
Date: 1998/03/22
Message-ID: <6f2jmd$imp@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>
Newsgroups: soc.history
> You have presumed to put the burden for the production of these documents
> on me, after reading the post in which I explained they're hard to get.
> I will tell you exactly where they are, which may or may not help you.
>
<snip documentation>
> The documents are quite authentic. Please do not blame me that they
> are not very accessible; that is what I came here to tell you.
This was hardly a presumption! Documentation and proof are the
responsibility of the accuser, particularly in matters of historical
revisionism. Without them there is no case. Their accessibility is really
not an issue, so long as they exist and are accessible.
You have fulfilled your obligation to cite support for your claims, and the
obligation passes to those who would dispute the matter to examine the
references. I will tuck it away with an "awareness flag" meaning that if
the information finds me I will stop to examine it- obviously the matter is
not as important to me as it is to you, but it is somewhat interesting.
Perhaps after the conclusion of your legal proceeding you can provide full
documentation (websites have been devoted to much less). There is still the
matter of the conclusions you have drawn about the entire American Republic
in 1998, based on your interpretation of the events of 1810 , which I would
still dispute even if the evidence supports your historical claim.
Subject: Re: Government Censored History
From: jthunderbird@nternet.com
Date: 1998/03/23
Message-ID: <6f50bd$53g$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
Newsgroups: soc.history
In article <6f2jmd$imp@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
"Vagor" <daveshoup@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> <snip documentation>
OK, Dave, I am glad we could reach a modus vivendi on methodology with
a minimum of that grumpiness which Usenet seems to engender.
> Perhaps after the conclusion of your legal proceeding you can provide full
> documentation (websites have been devoted to much less). There is still the
> matter of the conclusions you have drawn about the entire American Republic
> in 1998,
I think we need to clarify "entire".
> based on your interpretation of the events of 1810 , which I would
> still dispute even if the evidence supports your historical claim.
Were the legal theory borne out I have implied, that a Constitution
is such a Magickal document that even when buried, even for centuries,
it holds all the powers its originators meant to bestow on it, plus some
more accumulated to it by happenstance, it would not upset the fundamental
principles of the republican theory of government, but would fulfill them,
though in a quite unexpected way.
You have skipped a stage which I need to emphasize. I think you're taking
my Constitutional challenge as an attack on the existence, or at least on
the legitimacy, of the United States. If only for my own self preservation,
I have to point out my interests are those of my regional constituency.
My claim that United States jurisdiction is invalid here does not amount
to saying the US shouldn't exist, or that it might not be a suitable
government for other people in other places. I'm just saying get off my
land and let my people go.
The first republic on the Western Hemisphere ate the third. You didn't
know that before this week. The West Florida legislators were very aware
that the United States was about to engulf them militarily, and that no
amount of bloodshed would alter that outcome appreciably. They deliberately
acted to place the fate of their Republic in the hands of posterity, of
"learned Civilians and Judges" versed in the "Laws of Nations." The US
preferred not to let its actions be so judged, instead supressing the
entire history of the country. That coverup made the West Florida Papers
a ticking infernal device, in that their release into public awareness will
injure the United States. We didn't do that, here speaking for West Florida.
Only the actions of the United States caused this potentially injurious
situation to arise. Sometimes, even if you're the most powerful empire
in the history of the planet, you get what you pay for.
Johnny Thunderbird
Colonel Commandant
West Florida Militia
http://www.oocities.org/~jthunderbird
http://www.nternet.com/~jthunderbird
------------------------
I believe in a conspiracy theory of history.
I've seen the bastards conspiring.
Fellow Worker Fred Thompson, IWW
Subject: Re: Government Censored History
From: oscar_schlaf@yahoo.com
Date: 1998/03/23
Message-ID: <6f5hb5$lqr$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
Newsgroups: soc.history
In article <6f50bd$53g$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
jthunderbird@nternet.com wrote:
>
> In article <6f2jmd$imp@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Vagor" <daveshoup@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
(snip)
After reviewing all the souces given(and untangling myself from other
"discussion") I figured I'd follow-up.
It seems to me that the US did indeed break a treaty with the Republic
of West Florida and there were some efforts to cover it up.
However if one wishes to get into the legality of the issue, one must
question the legal right for the Republic of West Florida to even exist,
considering at the time the Guld coast of the area was claimed by Spain &
the US and for a time by France & Britain. Not to mention the various
Native American groups in the area either.
If one is going to question the legality of US annexation of the
Republic, one must question the legality of the state itself.
The annexation of the area did violate certain US laws, but then again
dozens of Native American treaties before & since then were also violated
by the US federal & state governments. Sad and unfortunate, but inevitable
really.
There would be no US without the US violating British laws about secession
so in a way it's what the US was founded upon.
---Oscar Schlaf---
Subject: Re: Government Censored History
From: "Vagor" <daveshoup@worldnet.att.net>
Date: 1998/03/23
Message-ID: <6f5tet$rl4@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>
Newsgroups: soc.history
> If one is going to question the legality of US annexation of the
> Republic, one must question the legality of the state itself.
> There would be no US without the US violating British laws about
secession
> so in a way it's what the US was founded upon.
Yet Lincoln enforced a similar proscription against secession to prevent
the dissolution of the same Union. Empire-building has always required an
instinct for choosing between exigency and legality. Slaves to precedent
get nowhere.
Subject: Re: Government Censored History
From: algeier@Somnifest.uwm.edu (algeier)
Date: 1998/03/22
Message-ID: <3513cfc6.6568837@news.alpha.net>
Newsgroups: soc.history
"Vagor" <daveshoup@worldnet.att.net> wrote to and soc.history:
== My point was that you are not going to get this land back. If your intent is
== to get a tasty $$$ settlement, have at it. Every ethnic group imaginable is
== whining about some transgression in the past for which they feel due some
== compensation; I attempted to illustrate the futility of such claims.
A determined group can get "its" land back, as we've seen in the
Middle East and the Balkans. The conditions in Florida are certainly
not ripe for it, however.
<><><><><><><><><><><><>
Ye shall know the truth
-Didaskalos
http://www.oocities.org/westhollywood/village/1360
www.glinn.com/pink
<><><><><><><><><><><><>
Subject: Re: Government Censored History
From: jthunderbird@nternet.com
Date: 1998/03/22
Message-ID: <6f4qus$vh5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
Newsgroups: soc.history
In article <3513cfc6.6568837@news.alpha.net>,
algeier@Somnifest.uwm.edu (algeier) wrote:
>
> "Vagor" <daveshoup@worldnet.att.net> wrote to and soc.history:
>
> == My point was that you are not going to get this land back.
> A determined group can get "its" land back, as we've seen in the
> Middle East and the Balkans.
The Middle East. The Balkans. _Greater Russia_. What odds would you have
given in 1980 for the Ukraine to be independent in a decade?
> The conditions in Florida are certainly
> not ripe for it, however.
Do I need to keep saying this? West Florida Republic ain't in Florida.
> Ye shall know the truth
>
> -Didaskalos
I'll guess what you meant, though. Conditions on the Gulf Coast, in the
Deep South, anywhere the US school systems teach as part of the US, make
successful regional seperatism a low probability expectation. Close?
I expect you may not have phrased it in such neutral terms, alors.
What odds were you giving USSR fragmentation in advance? I'll tell you
honestly, it was a surprise to me. I wasn't aware of any particularly
intense nationalism leading up to it, and indeed what went on there did
not seem to involve much hatred for the central government because the
central government mistreated republic A or republic B, but rather a
consensus to dismantle the central government because it was a dangerously
malfunctioning piece of machinery.
You are stating a fair impression of cross sectional current opinion, and
no doubt you further mean to imply popular disapproval in advance for
introducing the topic. Know that this story is hot stuff; the material is
inherently intruiging, and could well make a big splash in the human
consciousness. The phenomonon of mass public interest, I propose, could
have the effect of making West Florida independence a fait accompli in
the human mind much faster than any legal (to say nothing of martial) test
could be organized. Hey, it's a theory...
Johnny Thunderbird
Colonel Commandant
West Florida Militia
heavyLight Books http://www.oocities.org/~jthunderbird
the Sorceror's Web Page http://www.nternet.com/~jthunderbird
-----------------------
Communication is only possible between equals. Aleister Crowley.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Subject: Re: Government Censored History
From: "Vagor" <daveshoup@worldnet.att.net>
Date: 1998/03/23
Message-ID: <6f4umv$ekk@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>
Newsgroups: soc.history
> > == My point was that you are not going to get this land back.
>
> > A determined group can get "its" land back, as we've seen in the
> > Middle East and the Balkans.
>
> The Middle East. The Balkans. _Greater Russia_. What odds would you have
> given in 1980 for the Ukraine to be independent in a decade?
Got a couple of posts munged together, here; as for me, I would not have
guessed that Ukraine would be independent in a decade. Nor would I like to
guess where it'll be politically in another decade. But,
> What odds were you giving USSR fragmentation in advance? I'll tell you
> honestly, it was a surprise to me. I wasn't aware of any particularly
> intense nationalism leading up to it...<snip> it was a dangerously
> malfunctioning piece of machinery.
The Ukraine benefited from the collapse of the Soviet Union, but I don't
think the Ukraine brought it about. The Soviet Union was essentially a
Russian government that quit making sense for Russia. The captive nations
could and did make a break for it, since the central administration lost
its will to impose upon them.
It seems to me that the Republic of West Florida has more in common with
the Chechens or Tadzhiks. Unrecognized as independent entities for a very
long time, if ever, they hope to exploit the collapse of the status quo to
create a national entity, where there had previously been ethnic
consciousness only. To the extent that the RWF can create an
anarcho-tribal-ganja coalition with a sense of identity, they might be able
to exploit a similar collapse of the American power structure. I don't see
them bringing such a collapse about, however.
> Hey, it's a theory...
I have some poems about West Florida.
Day of Infamy
Status Quo Ante Bellum
The Fallen Scepter
Star of the South
Back to News
Back to Front
[More Headers]
> Nations come and go, such is history.
<snip>
> Spain took Florida from one group and then later sold what they took
>to the US, that in the middle some tribes moved into Spainish Florida
>means little.
> All nations are founded upon conquest. Such are the facts. If one really
>wanted too one could go back further and further until every modern nation
>& state is invalidated legally speaking.
Right. By picking western Florida, Johnny is wisely choosing the softer
target, where some bizarre combination of white guilt and political
expediency might send a few $$$ his way if he proves legally annoying
enough, but probably not.
What would happen if he took his claim of ancestral ownership to South
Florida? The new occupiers don't feel guilty. Johnny is too late! The
dispossessers are now the dispossessed.
Who would a North African sue to get "his" land back? Carthage? Rome? The
Vandals? Byzantium? Islam? The French? This only names some recent
co-defendants.
Commandant Thunderbird has some interesting theories, especially regarding
infinity and the granularity of time (it is composed of chronons).
So, the Seminoles were one of the granules, as were the Spanish, the French,
the USA, the Cubans, and whoever's next (and previous). The size of "your"
granule is dependent on your determination and your ability to prevail over
neighboring granules, over finite time. As finite gravity acts on the finite
universe of matter, granules are sifted and settle. Described in four
dimensions, human history is a beaker of chronon-clusters, and everybody is
in there somewhere. Thanks to the linearity of finite time, the mess cannot
be unsifted.