Not these same at all. Same country, same flag, same constitution.
Not possible to know if person has take oath in different court or case. But then I do not take an oath I legal situations as I affirm.
Rich Hall and American Indians
- Thread starter rik_uk3
- Start date
Not possible to know if person has take oath in different court or case. But then I do not take an oath I legal situations as I affirm.
Very muck the same. Likewise similar to retaking the oath of enlistment every time I re-enlsited.
Surely if you are saying that if you have sworn allegiance once, even to a constitution or flag,then that should do for all time, (and there is a grain of logic in that),then you must be saying that no person should change their nationality, get divorced, etc last year 16,000 people took British Citizenship which I assume would include some statement of loyalty to the Crown and to the UK, whether attested to or sworn by Oath,this does not make those people dishonest or their promise or word worthless,people always have the right to change their loyalty to anything, even their country or commonwealth cannot be taken for granted, as it will depend on the circumstances, I am quite sure that there were many Germans during WW2, who could no longer support nor feel allied to the atrocities their country was doing, the same in other parts of the world. Circumstances and people change, eg: Brexit,
Here's the Oath new British citizens take: "I, [name], [swear by Almighty God] [do solemnly, sincerely and truly affirm and declare] that, on becoming a British citizen, I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs, and successors, according to law."
Since 1 January 2004, applicants for British citizenship are also required, in addition to swearing the oath or affirmation of allegiance, to make a pledge to the United Kingdom as follows:
"I will give my loyalty to the United Kingdom and respect its rights and freedoms. I will uphold its democratic values. I will observe its laws faithfully and fulfil my duties and obligations as a British citizen."
Your statement about changing circumstances also changing loyalties is well stated. But if I may cut to the chase, Boatman's original point being what an "honorable" man might do. Here are some examples of what an honorable man might do"
-Tell the truth with or without an oath
-Give the appropriate loyalty to his country when due with or without any oath
-Mount a rebellion or revolution against his country when warranted even despite any previous oaths
Here's an example of what an honorable man will not do:
-Distribute smallpox infected blankets to innocent natives
Your statement about changing circumstances also changing loyalties is well stated. But if I may cut to the chase, Boatman's original point being what an "honorable" man might do. Here are some examples of what an honorable man might do"
-Tell the truth with or without an oath
-Give the appropriate loyalty to his country when due with or without any oath
-Mount a rebellion or revolution against his country when warranted even despite any previous oaths
Here's an example of what an honorable man will not do:
-Distribute smallpox infected blankets to innocent natives
Or run prisoner of war camps such as Andersonville. Non sequiteur I am afraid. Quite legitimate o change one's country of allegiance openly. Particularly that few countries are as obsessive as America over regular pledges. As a subject in the UK I have n v r tak n such a pledge.
What does a pledge have to do with offering smallpox tainted blankets to innocent natives?
No need to fire a single shot!
These people became the walking dead. No camps. Not POW. Just extinction.
Diseases know no political boundaries.
No need to fire a single shot!
These people became the walking dead. No camps. Not POW. Just extinction.
Diseases know no political boundaries.
I've just had an email in (one of those world is ending...... sign a petition or do something ones) suggesting that a major drinks company will make a fortune out of using Stevia as sweetner. The jist of the complaint was that the tribe who developed(?) Stevia would not get any benefit from it's use.
I mention it here as I thought we were almost done with such things and that seemed almost in the ballpark of on topic.
MODS - there's no petition to sign there is a video I have not linked to here, but if this post breaks or bends any rules or stirs too much trouble, feel free to remove it.
I mention it here as I thought we were almost done with such things and that seemed almost in the ballpark of on topic.
MODS - there's no petition to sign there is a video I have not linked to here, but if this post breaks or bends any rules or stirs too much trouble, feel free to remove it.
I don't like the +1 thing, so I'll say I completely agree with you Lee. It's embarrassing for the forum and users alike.
As there is no rep or like button, consider your post both repped and liked.
Civil War POW Camps
Confederate Camps:
-Andersonville (also known as Camp Sumter)
-Belle Isle
-Salibury Prison
Union Camps:
-Alton Federal Prison
-Point Lookout
-Elmira Prison
-Camp Douglas
Both sides unable to provide food, shelter or medical care for their prisoners. After the War one of the Confederate commandants was executed for it but evidence later indicated that he, like all the commandants of camps on both sides, simply didn't have the resources to properly care for their prisoners. In other words, nothing they did was deliberately intended to inflict suffering on their charges; which brings us back to that smallpox thing. Can you say the same?
Last edited:
No excuse available or needed for the smallpox blankets the idea was horrible
. However, the spread of disease far more likely from diseases spread "naturally" from carriers. In fact would the accretions on the blankets not be that very substance used then to innoculate against smallpox?
. However, the spread of disease far more likely from diseases spread "naturally" from carriers. In fact would the accretions on the blankets not be that very substance used then to innoculate against smallpox?
Perhaps not the worst thread ever, but certainly not the best in a long while. Thing is, no one has reported any of the posts, no one has broken any of the rules (stretched maybe a little).
There was a time when we would have closed this thread before it got to its 80th post simply on the basis that it looked like it was going down hill and we would think it wasn't in the public interest to let it continue, or something like that. When we employed that type of moderation we got a lot of push back from members about overly heavy handed moderation and it seemed to cause more problems than it solved. A lot of people on here don't like authority much. Some people (now departed) didn't like being told they couldn't discuss some things and ended up starting more awkward threads and being more argumentative than they would have done otherwise.
While there have been some interesting and informative posts made on this thread, two thoughts keep coming to me:
There was a time when we would have closed this thread before it got to its 80th post simply on the basis that it looked like it was going down hill and we would think it wasn't in the public interest to let it continue, or something like that. When we employed that type of moderation we got a lot of push back from members about overly heavy handed moderation and it seemed to cause more problems than it solved. A lot of people on here don't like authority much. Some people (now departed) didn't like being told they couldn't discuss some things and ended up starting more awkward threads and being more argumentative than they would have done otherwise.
While there have been some interesting and informative posts made on this thread, two thoughts keep coming to me:
Sometimes it looks more to me like they don't like other people's authority much, but seem quite comfortable with their own.
For the Mods and arguers maybe.
I got bored of having threads like this that start out interesting and descend into argument.
I got even more bored of finding I had got sucked right into the middle of that argument and that I was not only reading garbage but adding to it.
The level of filtering required was too much work. So I voted with my wallet and pulled my FM subscription.
That does seem the obvious answer doesn't it?
Perhaps not the worst thread ever, but certainly not the best in a long while. Thing is, no one has reported any of the posts, no one has broken any of the rules (stretched maybe a little).
There was a time when we would have closed this thread before it got to its 80th post simply on the basis that it looked like it was going down hill and we would think it wasn't in the public interest to let it continue, or something like that. When we employed that type of moderation we got a lot of push back from members about overly heavy handed moderation and it seemed to cause more problems than it solved. A lot of people on here don't like authority much. Some people (now departed) didn't like being told they couldn't discuss some things and ended up starting more awkward threads and being more argumentative than they would have done otherwise.
While there have been some interesting and informative posts made on this thread, two thoughts keep coming to me:
Very true; and guilty as charged (although not by name) I'll withdraw from further comment as all pertinent opinions have been expressed and anything more is just a back and forth.
Its time to lock this thread down, just the usual few members each acting like a dog with a bone.
……..and it all kicked off because you wanted the last word on Indians or Native Americans……
Similar threads
