#civil war ii the oath

[agentxthirteen]

On this day (January 25) in Sharon Carter history, Sharon appeared in:

Civil War II: The Oath #1 (2017)

Civil War II: The Oath #1 [Variant] (2017)

Captain America: Steve Rogers #10 (2017)

Captain America: Steve Rogers #10 [Variant] (2017) (Sharon on cover)

Captain America by Ed Brubaker Vol. 1 HC (Reprint Captain America V6 #1-#5) (2012)

[hvrricqneeee]

BREAKING DOWN HOUSE OF THE DRAGON SCENES

House of the Dragon did a lot of things wrong, but one of the scenes I think was the best in season 2 was the scene between Davos Blackwood and Aeron Bracken. The contextualisation of why certain houses declare for which side was a nice touch.

“The assize of-“

“Fuck the assize, and fuck you.”

For those who don’t know what an assize is, here is the Google definiton:

a court which formerly sat at intervals in each county of England and Wales to administer the civil and criminal law. In 1972 the civil jurisdiction of assizes was transferred to the High Court, and the criminal jurisdiction to the Crown Court.

In the context of House of the Dragon, “The Assize” refers to the Great Council of 101 AC.

A little context for the show onlies: The Great Council of 101 AC was convened by old King Jaehaerys I Targaryen after the unexpected death of his son and heir Baelon Targaryen, so that the lords of the Seven Kingdoms could settle on who should succeed him on the Iron Throne.

We saw a short clip of this in the pilot episode when Emma D’arcy does their voice over.

“As the first century of the Targaryen dynasty came to a close, the health of the Old King, Jaehaerys, was failing. In those days, House Targaryen stood at the height of its strength with 10 adult dragons under its yoke. No power in the world could stand against it. King Jaehaerys reigned over nearly 60 years of peace and prosperity. But tragedy had claimed both his sons, leaving his succession in doubt. So, in the year 101, the Old King called a Great Council to choose an heir. Over a thousand lords made the journey to Harrenhal. Fourteen succession claims were heard but only two were truly considered: Princess Rhaenys Targaryen, the King’s eldest descendant, and her younger cousin, Prince Viserys Targaryen, the King’s eldest male descendant. Rhaenys, a woman, would not inherit the Iron Throne. The lords instead chose Viserys… my father. Jaehaerys called the Great Council to prevent a war being fought over his succession. For he knew the cold truth. The only thing that could tear down the House of the Dragon… was itself.”

According to Archmaester Gyldayn, in the eyes of many, the council of 101 AC established an iron precedent on matters of succession: that the Iron Throne could not pass to a woman, or to a male descendant of a woman.

After ascending the throne, King Viserys I Targaryen named his daughter Rhaenyra, his only surviving child by his first marriage, as his heir after the death of his second born son, Prince Baelon. After three sons had been born in his second marriage, Viserys was asked about the succession repeatedly, but he chose to ignore the precedents of 101 AC, and Rhaenyra remained his heir. In 109 AC Viserys dismissed Ser Otto Hightower, his Hand of the King, because Otto kept asking the king about the matter.

Following the death of Viserys, at the start of the coup for the throne by the greens, Viserys's small council examined the annals of the Great Council. They determined that the houses which had dissented during the Great Council were likely to support the claim of Rhaenyra Targaryen instead of Aegon II Targaryen. Among others, the greens accurately predicted that the Starks would side with Rhaenyra due to how they voted at the Great Council.

The Great Council determined who would side where pretty much.

In Fire and Blood, the two front runners for the throne were Viserys and Laenor, but in the show, it was Viserys and Rhaenys, so for the sake of this comparison, we’ll have to presume that those who sided with Laenor would have sided with Rhaenys.

Known supporters of Laenor/Rhaenys:

Lord Blackwood

Lord Ellard Stark

Lord Corlys Velaryon

Lord Boremund Baratheon

Lord Celtigar

Lord Bar Emmon

Lord Manderly

Lord Dustin

Of this list, we see that house Blackwood declares for Rhaenyra (affirmed by the words of Davos Blackwood), House Stark declares for Rhaenyra (sending men and keeping the oath sworn to King Viserys when he named Rhaenyra heir), House Velaryon supports Rhaenyra, Lord Bar Emmon has a seat on Rhaenyra’s council, House Manderly swears to Rhaenyra under the premise that Joffrey will one day marry one of Lord Manderly’s daughters, House Dustin swears to Rhaenyra, Lord Barton’s Celtigar becomes Rhaenyra’s master of coin (this is the guy she slaps guys, just to clarify). The only house on this list that does not declare for Rhaenyra is House Baratheon, and that is because Aemond Targaryen becomes betrothed to one of Lord Borros’ daughters (Floris, the youngest) in exchange for loyalty to The Greens.

Known supporters of Viserys:

Lord Tymond Lannister

Lord Peake

Lord Grover Tully

Prince Daemon Targaryen

To evaluate this list, The Lannisters declare for the greens (with Tyland Lannister sitting the small council as master of ships while Viserys was alive and master of coin later on). Lord Peake is succeeded by his son Unwin Peake (a regent of Aegon III and Hand of the King) who declares for the greens. House Tully had supported Viserys Targaryen, however, in the dance, declares for Rhaenyra.

It is a relatively short list of known declarations for the respective front runners, so we cannot properly ascertain the level of change and discrepancies between the declarations of The Assize and the declarations of The Dance.

However, it’s fairly indicative that whatever a house voted at The Assize, they were likely to vote upon the same pretext during The Dance (supporters of Rhaenys/Laenor supported Rhaenyra, and supporters of Viserys supported Aegon).

In the interaction between Davos and Aeron, we hear that House Bracken declared for Aegon, and House Blackwood refutes Aegon’s claim and therefore, unofficially declares for Rhaenyra. We know that House Blackwood declared in line with previous choices since the Blackwoods sided with Rhaenys/Laenor at The Assize, but we are given no information about why the Brackens sided with the greens.

Perhaps it was because they might have sided with Viserys at the council and old habits die hard, or perhaps it was because of the rumour that Rhaenyra was responsible for Jaehaerys’ death (Aeron references this when calling Rhaenyra a ‘babekiller’), or perhaps it was because of the longstanding rivalry between the Brackens and the blackwoods.

“We've had a hundred peaces with the Brackens, many sealed with marriages. There's Blackwood blood in every Bracken, and Bracken blood in every Blackwood. The Old King's Peace lasted half a century. But then some fresh quarrel broke out, and the old wounds opened and began to bleed again. That's how it always happens, my father says. So long as men remember the wrongs done to their forebears, no peace will ever last. So we go on century after century, with us hating the Brackens and them hating us. My father says there will never be an end to it.” - Hoster Blackwood to Jaime Lannister

The rivalry between the houses is ancient and would be a plausible reason for their opposed alliances during the dance.

The scene between Davos and Aeron contextualised the great houses choosing sides, and expanded the show to the world beyond The Red Keep, Dragonstone and Driftmark. Suddenly, ordinary nobles mattered and their opinions on the succession mattered too. Their disagreements and quarrels mattered too. It highlighted how a familial dispute founded in Hightower ambitions and decades of plans of usurpations had such a dramatic impact on the wider Westerosi world.

The battle of the burning mill is the first time that we really feel the tragedy that this civil war will bring. It’s the first time that we realise how much the Iron Throne will cost both sides and the price of power.

[scotianostra]

On May 11th 1685 Margaret Lachlane, or McLachlan, and Margaret Wilson were put to death.

The sins of our past are sair tae bare at times and this is certainly one that qualifies as such, what makes it all the more sad is that they had been reprieved, but the distance from Edinburgh to Wigtown but for reasons unknown it never made it to save the women.

Here’s the background, some of you might know but not all, back in 17th century religion was very important to most people in Scotland, indeed the worldover. The reformation waa over and Protestants were in the vast majority, especially in the more populace lowlands. By now The Stuart Monarchy ruled both Scotland and England, having survived a civil war in which Charles I lost his head, eventually his son, Charle II was invited back to take the throne. You would have thought that Charles II had learned his lesson, his old boy had tried to enforce the English form of the Protestant religion in Scotland but failed, young Charles tried again but the Scots were not having it, many Scots signed what is known as The National Covenant that pledged to defend “their” true religion against innovations like those down south. Many were put to death for refusing to swear allegiance to the King and “his” prayer book. Over the years there were many battles and lives lost, it is now known in Scotland as “The Killing Time"

ny way the people thought it might come to an end in February 1658 when Charles II died, those who had been hiding from persecution started returning to their homes, including the young Wilson girls who were sheltered at the home of Margaret McLachlan, a 63 year old widow who lived at Drumjargan in Kirkinner Parish. A local man betrayed them when they came into Wigtown, and the two girls were taken prisoner. At the same time, Margaret McLachlan was seized while at prayer in her own home, and held in custody with them. The women were required to take the Oath of Abjuration which had earlier been administered to everyone in the County over the age of 13 years. This had been introduced on 25 November 1684 by the Privy Council, in order to catch sympathisers of Richard Cameron. In a public declaration at Sanquhar Cross, Cameron had denounced the King as a tyrant and declared war on him.

Refusal to swear the Oath allowed execution without trial; men could be hanged or shot; a new sentence had been introduced for women: death by drowning. The women refused the Oath and were brought before the Commission. The Commissioners, Grierson of Lagg, Sheriff David Graham (Claverhouse’s brother), Major Windram, Captain Strachan and Provost Coltrane of Wigtown, have been described as “five of the most vicious scoundrels in Scotland”.

Margaret McLachlan with Margaret and Agnes Wilson were found guilty on all charges and they were sentenced “to be tyed to palisadoes and fixed in the sand, within the flood mark, at the mouth of the Blednoch stream, and there to stand till the flood over flowed them, and [they] drowned”. Agnes Wilson (aged only thirteen at the time) was reprieved, when her father promised to pay a bond of £100, a fortune in that day.

A pardon was issued in Edinburgh, dated 30 April 1685, for both women

It remains a mystery what happened to it, since no record of it remains beyond the Council Chamber. They were taken out and tied to stakes in the waters of the Bladnoch on 11 May 1685. The older woman was tied deeper in the river channel forcing young Margaret to witness her death, in the hope that she would relent. Instead, she seemed to take strength from the older woman’s fate, singing a psalm, and quoting scripture.

The events are recorded in the Kirk Session records of both Penninghame and Kirkinner parishes, vouched for by elders and ministers who were present on the day, and the records confirmed by the Presbytery of Wigtown. The Penninghame records say that Margaret Wilson’s head was held up from the water, in order to ask her if she would pray for the King. She answered that she wished the salvation of all men, but the damnation of none. When her watching relatives cried out that this proved she was willing to conform, Major Windram offered her the Oath of Abjuration again, but she refused, saying “I am one of Christ’s children; let me go”.

The Kirkinner records state that Margaret McLachan’s head had been “held down within the water by one of the town officers by his halberd at her throat, til she died”. A popular account adds that the officer said “then tak’ another drink o’t my hearty”. Legend has it that for the rest of his life the man had an unquenchable thirst, and had to stop and drink from every ditch, stream, or tap he passed, and he was deserted by his friends.

Likewise the constable named Bell, who had carried out his duties with a notable lack of feeling, allegedly said, when asked how the women had behaved, “O, they just clepped roun the stobs, like partans and prayed”. Clepped means web-footed, partans are crabs. Bell’s wife bore three children all with “clepped” fingers, and the family was referred to as “the Cleppie Bells” which was believed to be the sins of the father being visited on the children.

It was not only women who died, William Johnstone, John Milroy and George Walker were hanged in Wigtown the same year, for refusal to take the oath, but Margaret Wilson, due to her young age has become the most famous of the martyrs and is the subject of a famous painting by the English artist John Everett Millais called The Martyr of Solway.

Art conservators have x-rayed the painting and found out that Millais had originally painted the upper torso of the young woman naked. However when the painting was exhibited in 1871 there were strong puritanical views on nudity in paintings and Millais’ work offended Victorian sensibilities. It was badly received and was the butt of many negatively critical reviews. Hence it was painted over to save the Victorian eyes of such a sight!

The photo is from Stirling Old Town Cemetery a monument to the Wigtown Martyrs, further afield a Victorian statue of Margaret Wilson’s martyrdom is on display at Knox College, University of Toronto, Canada, as seen in the second pic, the third pic is the Martyrs' Grave, Wigtown parish church, Dumfries and Galloway.

[stephensmithuk]

The Hound of the Baskervilles: The Curse of the Baskervilles

CW for discussion of crimes against humanity.

Devonshire is a historical alternative name for the county of Devon, these days not seeing that much use. Devon and next-door Cornwall have a friendly rivalry going over various things, including the order in which you put cream and jam on a scone. Cornwall does jam first, Devon cream. Getting it the wrong round in the relevant county can attract disapproving looks.

Mainstream Christianity believes that the only sin that cannot be forgiven by God is "blaspheming against the Holy Spirit", which is a continuous and arrogant rejection of it. It is generally deemed impossible for a Christian to actually do because if you worried that you've done it, you're not rejecting the Holy Spirit.

The Great Rebellion is the then standard name for what is commonly called the English Civil War or less commonly, but more correctly the War of the Three Kingdoms - England, Scotland and Ireland all being their own kingdoms under a single monarch, Wales is a principality. Lasting from 1639 to 1653 and including a whole bunch of conflicts, including two English Civil Wars. Various videos explaining the whole rather complex affair with varying degrees of comedy can be found on YouTube, but the popular version is that a bunch of republicans (Roundheads) with short hair fought a bunch of monarchists with long hair (Cavaliers). To quote Arnold Rimmer, it ended "1-0 to the pudding-basins" and King Charles I ended up losing his head in public.

Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon, a key member of the governments of Charles I and Charles II wrote some memoirs of the whole period. Initially written between 1646 and 1648 as a defence of the former, his fall from power and exile in 1667 (he was made to carry the can for the English defeat against the Netherlands in the Second Anglo-Dutch War despite having little involvement) resulted in a massive expansion and re-write of The History of the Rebellion, which generally runs to no less than six volumes. One can compare it to Winston Churchill's The Second World War it seems - interesting, but watch for bias.

A yeoman in this context was a commoner who owned the land that he farmed, as opposed to being merely a tenant. Indeed a third of all farmland remains run by tenanted farmers; including much of Dartmoor, which is owned by the Duchy of Cornwall, the land holdings of a (male only) heir to the throne.

A maiden is traditionally an unmarried girl or young woman, with a strong implication of virginity to boot.

Michaelmas is a Christian festival held on 29 September in honour Saint Michael and all the other angels. It was traditionally associated with the end of harvest and a bunch of other stuff, including the legal calendar. The Lord Mayor of London (not to be confused with the Mayor of London) is elected on this. Traditionally the meal eaten here included goose, but it has very much fallen out of fashion in modern Britain.

A carouse (also a verb) is basically a long drinking and dancing event; "Carouse" turns up as a skill in some RPG systems i.e. the ability to do this effectively without ending up on the floor next to your vomit.

"Terrible oaths" here mean foul language.

A league is three statute miles, so she's got to get nine miles or 14.9 kilometres. That's a rather long way to go, especially in the dark.

A flagon is a large vessel for containing drink, about 2 imperial pints or 1.1 litres in capacity. You can either use it for pouring (in which case it will have a spout) or drinking from directly.

Trenchers were flat wood or metal plates used for serving food. In medieval times, they would be made of stale bread. After the meal, these and the juices, leftovers etc. would be generally given to the poor. Eating the trencher yourself was considered rather vulgar.

"Wench" has had various meanings over the years. In Shakespeare's time, it was a neutral or even endearing term for a young woman. It then evolved into a female server, particularly at a tavern (with the associated sexy costume, although I am not sure when that became a thing) and from there to being a term for a prostitute, with "wenching" becoming a verb to mean using the services of them. With an associated meaning of a promiscuous woman. It is not clear whether the writer is using the term or Hugo is here. I can see the latter using it in a rather venomous way.

A kerchief is another name for a bandana.

The pistols of the period were single-shot weapons requiring reloading with powder, wadding and shot. Even with regular practice like in an army (where this was a major part of drill), you'd be looking at a 15 to 20 second reloading time. It was commonplace to carry two pistols (a brace) as a result, at which point the fight was either over, or it was time to get your sword out. Some went still further - Blackbeard, who was going progressively crazy with syphilis, is recorded as carrying six loaded pistols on him.

There were 16 fatal dog on human attacks in the UK from January to September 2023; a sharp rise blamed on the American XL Bully breed, which was promptly banned in England and Wales as a result.

Providence means God's intervention in the universe.

"Which would not forever punish the innocent beyond that third or fourth generation which is threatened in Holy Writ" is a reference to the Commandment about not creating graven images or idols, either the Second Commandment or part of the First depending on your denomination; Anglicans put it as the Second.

"The probable Liberal candidate for Mid-Devon" is going to form part of a post discussing late Victorian elections, because I could go on all days about those. Central Devon was a narrow Conservative hold in 2024, by the way.

Nouveaux riches is French for "new rich", commonly rendered as "new money". The "aristocracy" on both sides of the Atlantic (see The Gilded Age) looked down on the new millionaires who were being created by the Industrial Revolution, such as railway tycoon Cornelius Vanderbilt.

The discovery of diamonds at Kimberley in 1867, followed by gold at Witwatersrand in 1886, led to a vast boom that turned what would become South Africa from an agricultural economy to a wealthy industrial one... most of that wealth ending in the hands of white people, of course. Indeed, it led to the actual creation of South Africa in the first place.

Inquests are held in England and Wales after any death that is violent, unnatural, a possible suicide or in custody. These were at the time conducted with a jury, but this has become much rarer since 1927, when a coroner can do it on their own in many cases. In the case of a murder, an inquest will be opened and adjourned to allow the police to investigate. This process can take quite a while; after the Manchester Arena bombing of 2017, a full public inquiry into the event was held and following the end of that in 2003, the same judge then conducted an inquest into the death of the bomber himself, as was legally required. No public hearings were held in this case to avoid attention and save public money. The conclusion was officially logged as "suicide while undertaking a terror attack that murdered 22 innocent victims and injured many others", Sir John Saunders clearly that merely putting "suicide" was insufficient.

The Gypsy and Traveller community have long been associated with horses, with the Appleby Horse Fair being held every June in Cumbria. The RSPCA have a large presence at the event to deal with any animal welfare issues, issuing warnings and will take animals away or prosecute people if required. The 2024 event saw two horses worked to death, the official website posting the RSPCA's request for information on those responsible.

I've discussed Bushmen/San in one of my posts on The Sign of Four.

"Hottentot" is a now-offensive term for the Khoekhoe nomadic pastoralists of Southern Africa, often grouped with the San. Its use in the 1964 Mary Poppins film has seen that movie reclassified in the UK from a U (universal) to a PG.

They are split into the Northern Khoekhoe or Nama, located in Namibia and Botswana, and the Southern Khoekhoe or Cape Khoe found in the SW coastal regions of South Africa. At the time this book was set, these were, respectively:

German South West Africa

Bechaunaland Protectorate (de facto independent until 1891 when the British took active control)

The Cape Colony

Two years after publication, separate Nama and Herero rebellions in the former against colonial rule (the German aim being ethnic cleansing) were brutally defeated, with the peoples either shot dead, driven into the desert or placed into concentration camps. They were subjected to medical experiments, skulls being taken to Germany for use as demonstration of "racial inferiority". The similarities between this genocide and the Holocaust are clear, although the precise connections are debated by historians.

It is estimated that up to 80% of the indigenous population died as a result.

Germany has in the last decade offically recognised this as a genocide, agreed to pay €1.1 billion to the affected communities and has returned the human remains held in German universities or teaching hospitals.

On a final note, Mortimer failing to mention the footprints around the body might be considered perjury.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

THE KOBAYASHI MARU TEST

TCINLA FEB 1, 2024 “Kobayashi Maru” is a Star Trek term that people who are not Star Trek fans know the meaning of. The phrase "Kobayashi Maru" has entered the popular lexicon as a reference to a no-win scenario. The term is also sometimes used to invoke Kirk's decision to "change the conditions of the test."

In Star Trek stories, “Kobayashi Maru” is a test designed to test the character of Starfleet Academy cadets, by placing them in a no-win scenario. The Kobayashi Maru test was first depicted in the 1982 film “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.”

In the stories, the “goal” of the exercise is to rescue the civilian ship “Kobayashi Maru,” which has been damaged and is now stranded in disputed territory between the Federation and the Klingon Empire. The cadet being evaluated must decide whether to attempt to rescue the Kobayashi Maru - which means putting their ship and crew in danger - or to leave the Kobayashi Maru to certain destruction. If the cadet chooses to attempt a rescue, an insurmountable enemy force attacks their ship, and they must deal with that.

Metaphorically, that test certainly applies to where we are today.

The term has been applied to real-world scenarios with no perceived positive outcome or that requires outside-the-box thinking, such as constitutional law, where the scenario is an event that may only be dealt with successfully by extra-constitutional, or unconstitutional, methods with the goal of protecting the constitution.

Commentators have used Kirk's unorthodox answer ("I don't believe in the no-win scenario”) to the test as an example of the need to redefine the premises upon which an organization operates - changing the rules rather than playing within them, that by stepping outside the rules of the game one can redefine the game.

While current indications show a shift in the national tide as we have hoped would happen, and with it the increasing likelihood that the enemies of out constitutional republic will fail in their assault, one possible outcome of the election of 2024 is that we may face the Kobayashi Maru Test.

Right now we face a “Crisis of Democracy” in the case of removing Donald Trump from the ballot under the rule in Article 3 of the 14th Amendment, which states that an individual who has taken part in an insurrection against the United States, or has given support to those who have, cannot occupy a political office under the United States and must not appear on the ballot.

“Democracy,” is on both sides of this case.

There are those who see excluding an immensely popular political figure from the ballot as being profoundly undemocratic.

Others see clearly that what is truly undemocratic is to empower a uniquely dangerous demagogue who has already disobeyed his solemn Oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic, and is thus a genuine threat who would end the constitutional republic that now exists, were he returned to office.

The tension between these two clashing visions can be resolved only by attending to the Constitution’s own specific implementation of “democracy,” which was the product of a great democratic process after a series of insurrectionary and democracy-imperiling events 160 years ago in the aftermath of the Civil War

Following President Andrew Johnson’s actions allowing the former Confederate traitors who had waged war against the United States to reorganize their states and rejoin the Union with a simple oath of allegiance easily taken with their fingers crossed behind their back while so doing, men who had played leading roles in the rebellion and war against the United States were elected by political means that involved suppressing the votes of those opposed to the former Confederate traitors retaking office - black and white.

Under President Johnson’s new rules, former Vice President of the Confederate States of America Alexander Stevens was elected a Senator from South Carolina, the state that had led the rebellion. When asked what he intended to do as a Senator, Stevens said openly he planned to prevent the government taking action to protect the freed slaves, and that he expected to act with the other Southern Senators and congressional representatives to rebuild the power the South had held in Congress before the war, in which they were able to prevent the enactment of any law or adoption of any policy to which they were opposed.

Had that happened, much more than the treatment of the former slaves would have been at stake. While the Southern reactionaries were out of the government during the war, many progressive acts, such as the Homestead Act opening the West to small farmers, or the Morrill Act, establishing publicly-funded institutions of higher learning in each state - both of which had been opposed by the Southern representatives before the war - would be in danger of repeal by the coming Southern majority. With the South effectively a one-party state, in which anyone elected to office could hold that office for so long as they wished, the South would retake control of the congressional committees, which were based on seniority.

It was decided that those who were proven by their actions to be dedicated to the destruction of the democratic constitutional republic, would be allowed no place, no power, in the government of that republic.

And thus Article 3 of the 14th Amendment was written and became law when the Amendment passed and became part of the Constitution.

Alexander Stevens and the other traitors were “immensely popular political figures” among their fellow insurrectionary traitors who were retaking political control of the newly reorganized states that were being returned to the Union under the policies of Andrew Johnson. Those who say today that excluding such “immensely popular political figures” from the ballot - regardless of their known political beliefs and actions - is “anti-democratic” would have been among the Copperheads (a term for northern Democrats who supported the South) who argued against the adoption not only of Article 3 but the entire 14th Amendment.

Today, Donald Trump and his supporters expressly state their intention to demolish the provisions of that amendment as regards the definition of who is a citizen, among their other planned attacks on the Constitutional rule of law, should they return to office. They are no different from the former Confederate traitors who also wished to continue waging war on the United States.

It has been “interesting” to watch the progression of authoritarianism in the United States over the past 60 years since the “Goldwater Revolution” failed.

We’ve always been told “it can’t happen here,” that there are rules and traditions preventing such a change, that authoritarianism was not even possible in the United States, without some wider cataclysm.

However, the past eight years have shown that if the would-be authoritarian takes on those traditions and guardrails one at a time, his partisans will say that this particular guardrail, this rule, this tradition, must be ignored, because it would be too inconvenient, too “divisive” to enforce it. But of course we need not worry, since the next guardrail can already be seen, and that will stop him.

Don’t worry about his nomination in the primary; he’ll lose the general election.

Don’t worry about his successful election; the party will keep him in check when he takes office.

Don’t worry about the party falling to his dominance; he can always be impeached.

Don’t worry about impeaching him; he can always be beaten in the next election.

Don’t worry about his coup attempt; he can be impeached again.

Don’t worry about the second impeachment; the criminal courts can bring him to justice.

Don’t worry about the criminal cases; there’s always the 14th Amendment.

Don’t worry about him winning; he’ll be blocked from staying in office past this term by the 22nd Amendment.

Unfortunately, it turns out that Trump’s genius was realizing this truth before the rest of us. His lifelong legal strategy of delay and bamboozle is perfect for gumming up the operation of all the defenses the system has built in to constrain him.

The Italians could say of Mussolini, “No one could have really known what he’d do, not for sure.” The Germans could say of Hitler, “No one could have really known what he’d do, not for sure.”

We in the United States cannot say that. Because we know what he’ll do. For sure.

We know what he has done in his first time in office. We have experienced it. When he tells us what he will do now, how he will destroy the Constitution, and the rule of law and destroy the democratic republic that is founded on that Constitution and the rule of law; we know he will do it because we know he has already tried to do it. His supporters promise they will do it.

Maya Angelou once said if someone tells you who they are, you should believe them.

What we are looking at in this year of 2024 here in the United States is the struggle between the idea of democracy and the rule of law, against authoritarianism and totalitarianism.

That struggle is also going on elsewhere. But if it is lost here, it will be lost everywhere.

We’re supposed to let him run on a platform of destroying what we have? We’re supposed to hand over power to him to do that, if he pulls off another Electoral College scam? We’re supposed to just give him the power he needs to do what he has told us he will do? What we know he will do?

We’re supposed to nod our heads and say “Here, you win, we lost, have a good day”?

We’re supposed to just let the fucking New Confederacy walk in and take over????!!

Democracy isn’t a suicide pact.

It’s been said many times, by conservative legal scholars, that “The Constitution isn’t a suicide pact.”

It’s a well-known rule of law that you cannot use the law to destroy the law.

Democracy matters. Freedom of expression matters. The rule of law matters. Values matter. That’s what’s at stake.

Our ancestors already made the decision for us. The rule is NOT that we surrender all because a “rule” says so. That rule has been superseded in this case. The rules of the game have already been changed. We can save the Kobayashi Maru, and damn any six traitors on a compromised, discredited, corrupt court who say otherwise.

For me, I can take Senator Angus King’s words, spoken on January 31, 2024 in debate over supporting the Ukrainian battle for survival, as a lodestar, a guide for action:

“I want to stand on the side of resisting authoritarianism, on the side of democracy, on the side of the values that the country has stood for and that people have been fighting for, for 250 years.”

WE are the ultimate defenders of the Republic.

Donald Trump cannot be allowed back into power, regardless. Ever.

TCinLA

[racefortheironthrone]

About anti-monarchical rebellions: Doesn't Wat Tyler &co count? "When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the Gentleman?" sounds more anti-hierarchical than "nobles should be nicer"?

So I talked about this in the links in my original post. (This is why I put them in, because I tend to develop these ideas in many places over time, so you have to step back a bit to see the whole tapestry.)

The Great Peasants' Revolt of 1381 would certainly count as anti-noble and anti-clerical, but that's not the same thing as anti-monarchical.

To quote myself:

For example, we can see the third face of power in the fact that, even though Wat Tyler had seized London, he still felt that he needed King Richard to give the commons a charter of liberty and trusted that the King would keep his word that he would issue one and his word that Wat Tyler would not be harmed during a parlay.

Wat Tyler, John Ball, Jack Straw and the rest of the Great Society were remarkably anti-hierarchical - they drew on Biblical authority to deny the existence of nobility as a concept and to challenge the right of clergy to hold secular property.

However, their radicalism stopped at the foot of the throne. Whether it was because Richard II was a boy-king or because of some lingering nostalgia over the memory of his father the Black Prince or the propaganda that had been drummed into them at birth that this was a god-anointed sovereign, they could not believe that the king was personally complicit in the oppression of the commons. It's all the fault of evil councilors around him like that bastard John of Gaunt.

Unfortunately, much like the poor deluded followers of Father Gapon, they were very wrong about their monarch. Richard II was very much ideologically aligned with his uncle of Gaunt, had no problems breaking his oath to Wat Tyler and his men, and as far as I'm concerned was a tyrant who was ultimately overthrown because he had lost the mandate of heaven.

But you don't see John Ball calling Richard II a "new Reheboam" in the same way that the religious radicals of the English Civil War called Charles I the "man of blood."

[etymology-of-the-emblem]

Duvall /ドバール and Pizare / ピサール

Duvall and Pizare are members of the Orgahil Pirates that stage a mutiny against their captain, Brigid, in Fire Emblem: Genealogy of the Holy War. Duvall likely gets his name from famed highwayman Claude Du Vall (more commonly Duval). Born to a family of French nobility stripped of their title, Du Vall was in service to English royalists in exile during the English Civil War. He joined his lords in crossing the English Channel after the ascension of Charles II. It would be in England that Du Vall's criminal record began; tales spread of a well-dressed man of politesse snatching riches off the stagecoaches of London. Yet all accounts claimed this rogue never resorted to violence, and was quick to give in to the will of women. These stories serve as the foundation of many fictitious highwaymen written around the time, and was possibly one inspiration of the gentleman thief trope. It's possible a reference to Du Vall here was intended to contrast the well-mannered thief with the Fire Emblem character's foul personality, his penchant for violence, and his ill treatment for his boss—the only woman he is seen interacting with.

Additionally, the county of Duval (JP: デュバル; rōmaji: dyubaru) in Fire Emblem Warriors: Three Hopes likely is named after Claude Du Vall as well. This likely is meant to relate the chivalrous bandit with the ideals of Faerghus.

Pizare's name is likely derived from Pizzare: a French adaptation of the Spanish surname Pizzaro. The name was seemingly created for the purpose of the opera of the same name based on the life of conquistador Francisco Pizarro. He began his career exploring the New World with the first European exploration of the Isthmus of Panama alongside Vasco Núñez de Balboa and became the alcalde of the newly-founded Panama City. Rumors of a city of gold hidden in South America motivated Pizzaro to venture further south. His third journey to make contact with the Inca Empire, Pizarro came on orders from the King of Spain to conquer Peru. In the peace following his conquest, Pizarro's fellow conquistador Diego de Almagro II would have him assassinated.

In Japanese, both of these Orgahil scoundrels have names derived from The Tragedy of the Sons of Tuireann, an Irish mythological tale following the brothers Brian, Iuchar, and Iucharba. Pizare is called ピサール (rōmaji: pisāru), in reference to King Pisear of Persia. In the story, Pisear possesses a poison-tipped spear (debated as to being the Gáe Assail or the Areadbhair) that is kept in a vat of water to prevent its heat from setting the capital of Persia ablaze. Brian attempts to convince Pisear to hand over the weapon under the guise of a bard singing the king's praises. However, Brian is incapable of telling a good poem. When Pisear refuses to humor the brothers, Brian chucks a magic apple through his head. The trio then slaughters the entire city.

In Japanese, Duvall is called ドバール (rōmaji: dobāru), from the King of Siogair (Sicily), Dobar. He is the owner of two great steeds and a chariot that can ride over the water as land. After their trial in Persia, Brian decides that to get in good favor with Dobar, the sons of Tuireann would serve Siogair as mercenaries. The brothers pledge an oath to the king and act under him for a month and two weeks—not once in that time do they see the horses. The three then confront Dobar, swearing to end their service to him if they are not allowed to bear sight of them. Dobar, understandably, is disappointed to hear their loyalty was so fragile, especially when he would have brought the brothers to the vehicle if they just asked day one. Soon after the horses and carriage are brought out, Brian strikes down king and the sons of Tuireann bring ruin to the court before setting off for their next destination.

In both scenarios, the kings and their people are assailed by the Irish outsiders and their valuables stolen. It may be that the use of the names Pisear and Dobar are less meant to invoke the largely nonexistent personalities of the kings and more to reference the theft of items and lives by Brian, Iuchar, and Iucharba. Befitting of the trouble caused by the pirates. In fact, the noble goals of the Orgahil Pirates' two known captains being betrayed by Duvall and Pizare could reference how the Sons of Tuireann themselves are gods that commit such foul acts. That, or that the eight-step fetch quest the brothers are sent on in the story is punishment doled out by the god of light and one of the most important Irish deities, Lugh.

In a tangential advertisement: I had the privilege of cooperating with the lovely folks behind the recently released Fire Emblem: Genealogy of the Holy War Spanish fan-translation! They brought me onto the team to research and provide localizations for the names that currently lack anything official. If you've ever wondered why so much of this blog is biased towards the Jugdral duology, that's 50% of the reason. But I digress; in this translation project, Duvall, Pizare, and many others have their names changed to be more accurate to the mythology and history they pull from. To any Spanish-speakers who follow my work: I highly recommend giving it a go! And I don't just say that because I worked on it!

[mserm]

I love knowing that despite all the times they fought, Steve and Tony's friendship makes them vulnerable to each other...

Avengers Annual: Infinite Destinies and Civil War II: The Oath

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

Nine Things You Should Know About the Westminster Confession

by John R. Bower

After nearly 400 years of service, the Westminster Confession of Faith continues to provide Reformed and Presbyterian churches worldwide a vibrant summary of Scripture’s principal teachings. But how has this document, drawn from a strikingly different age, remained equally relevant to today’s church?

In exploring this question, we consider nine essential elements of the Confession whereby the 17th-century Reformed church can be seen as standing arm in arm with the 21st-century church and beyond.

I. The Westminster Confession was designed as a doctrinal compass to keep the scriptural bearings of the church true, even when tossed by error and division. Civil war had thrown the Church of England into political, social, and ecclesiastical upheaval, and as its first step toward rebuilding the church, Parliament convened a national assembly of clergy to advise on the most scriptural guides for doctrine, worship, and government. Between 1643 and 1648, the Westminster Assembly of Divines created six separate documents for equipping the church anew, but of these the Confession of Faith was key. It alone expressed the mind of the church concerning the truths of Scripture and meshed the documents of worship and government into a unified working system.

II. From its inception, the Confession stood subordinate to the Word of God. In writing the Confession of Faith, the assembly remained passionately committed to the Reformation dictum of sola Scriptura, that Scripture alone speaks with final authority in all areas of faith and life. Indeed, the Confession’s statement “On the Scripture” is the document’s first and longest chapter. Here, Scripture is declared the inspired, infallible, sufficient, understandable, and the supreme judge of all disputes. Throughout the assembly’s work, members were oath-bound to affirm only those propositions supported by Scripture. Reflecting this commitment to the Word, the Confession’s 33 chapters bristle with more than 4,000 verses.

The Confession’s 33 chapters bristle with more than 4,000 verses.

III. In presenting the core truths of Scripture, the Confession followed a comprehensive and unified system of faith, reaching as far back as the Apostle’s Creed. Indeed, among the major Protestant confessions of the Reformation (Augsburg, Belgic, French, Second Helvetic), not only were the principle truths of Scripture held in common, but these doctrines were sorted into the same broad system of faith in God and duty to God. Following its creedal predecessors, the Westminster Assembly carefully preserved this doctrinal division of faith and service—a distinction the Shorter Catechism more expressively rendered as “what we are to believe concerning God” and “what duty God requires of man.”

IV. In its opening chapters, the Confession represents the heart of Reformed orthodoxy and historic Christianity. Here, the doctrines of faith emerge in three parts: God’s creative work and man’s fall (chs. 1–6), Christ’s work as Redeemer (chs. 7–8) and the Holy Spirit’s work in applying redemption (chs. 9–19).

V. The remaining part of the Confession (chs. 20–33) describes the believer’s responsibility to serve God, a service that embraces our neighbor, the state, and the church. The church, however, provides the principle venue wherein we serve God. Moving through chapters 25–31, the Confession elaborates on the doctrine of the church, the communion of the saints, the sacraments, and the far-reaching scope of church discipline. And culminating the saint’s life of service to God is entrance into the church glorious, described by the resurrection of the dead and the last judgment (chs. 32–33).

VI. “Of Christian Liberty and Liberty of Conscience” affirms how the individual believer’s conscience is free to serve Christ alone. But this freedom of conscience is further subject to those lawful civil and ecclesiastical authorities instituted by Christ. Balancing the several God-ordained authorities over conscience proved one of the assembly’s greatest challenges in framing the Confession, especially when faced with increasingly autonomous parishioners and competing civil and ecclesiastical claims of authority.

VII. The Confession offers a superlative platform for expressing consensus on the doctrines of Scripture and building unity within the church at large. When the Westminster Assembly labored to rebuild the church in the 17th century, England—like Scotland and many regions on the continent—recognized only a single church, making unity a societal as well as an ecclesiastical imperative. Today, although multiple denominations have replaced the single church model of the Reformation, the Confession retains its place in fostering unity within, and between, Reformed and Presbyterian churches worldwide.

VIII. Found within each of these nine essentials of the Confession is the centrality of Christ’s church. Guided by Scripture alone, the Confession affords a doctrinal anchor expressing the breadth of faith within the framework of the historic church. Saints are carefully guided in rendering their fullest service to God, especially within the visible church, where they are built toward unity in the one faith. In fact, while the Confession can be seen as enveloping all the great solas of the Reformation, it excelled in advancing the “forgotten sola” of sola ecclessia, the church alone.

While the Confession can be seen as enveloping all the great solas of the Reformation, it excelled in advancing the ‘forgotten sola’ of sola ecclessia, the church alone.

IX. The Confession was not intended to serve as a doctrinal storehouse, but to be communicated to every member of every church. The Larger and Shorter Catechisms were composed for this purpose. Thus, in writing its catechisms, the assembly kept an “eye to the Confession.” But this focus meant more than replicating content; the catechisms effectively conveyed the purposes of the confession, for as the principles of faith, life, and the church were taught and memorized, they built unity in the one faith from the ground up.

[agentxthirteen]

On this day (August 2, late) in Sharon Carter history, Sharon appeared in:

True Believers: Kirby 100th Black Panther #1 (Reprint Tales of Suspense #98) (2017)

Captain America Steve Rogers: Empire Building TPB (Reprint Civil War II: The Oath) (2017)

Captain America Steve Rogers: Empire Building TPB (Reprint Captain America: Steve Rogers #12, #15, #19) (2017)

[brookstonalmanac]

Events 1.3 (before 1960)

69 – The Roman legions on the Rhine refuse to declare their allegiance to Galba, instead proclaiming their legate, Aulus Vitellius, as emperor. 250 – Emperor Decius orders everyone in the Roman Empire (except Jews) to make sacrifices to the Roman gods. 1521 – Pope Leo X excommunicates Martin Luther in the papal bull Decet Romanum Pontificem. 1653 – By the Coonan Cross Oath, the Eastern Church in India cuts itself off from colonial Portuguese tutelage. 1749 – Benning Wentworth issues the first of the New Hampshire Grants, leading to the establishment of Vermont. 1749 – The first issue of Berlingske, Denmark's oldest continually operating newspaper, is published. 1777 – American General George Washington defeats British General Lord Cornwallis at the Battle of Princeton. 1815 – Austria, the United Kingdom, and France form a secret defensive alliance against Prussia and Russia. 1833 – Captain James Onslow, in the Clio, reasserts British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. 1848 – Joseph Jenkins Roberts is sworn in as the first president of Liberia. 1861 – American Civil War: Delaware votes not to secede from the United States. 1868 – Meiji Restoration in Japan: The Tokugawa shogunate is abolished; agents of Satsuma and Chōshū seize power. 1870 – Construction work begins on the Brooklyn Bridge in New York, United States. 1871 – In the Battle of Bapaume, an engagement in the Franco-Prussian War, General Louis Faidherbe's forces bring about a Prussian retreat. 1885 – Sino-French War: Beginning of the Battle of Núi Bop. 1911 – A magnitude 7.7 earthquake destroys the city of Almaty in Russian Turkestan. 1911 – A gun battle in the East End of London leaves two dead. It sparked a political row over the involvement of then-Home Secretary Winston Churchill. 1913 – An Atlantic coast storm sets the lowest confirmed barometric pressure reading for a non-tropical system in the continental United States. 1913 – First Balkan War: Greece completes its capture of the eastern Aegean island of Chios, as the last Ottoman forces on the island surrender. 1920 – Over 640 are killed after a magnitude 6.4 earthquake strikes the Mexican states Puebla and Veracruz. 1933 – Minnie D. Craig becomes the first woman elected as Speaker of the North Dakota House of Representatives, the first woman to hold a Speaker position anywhere in the United States. 1944 – World War II: US flying ace Major Greg "Pappy" Boyington is shot down in his Vought F4U Corsair by Captain Masajiro Kawato flying a Mitsubishi A6M Zero. 1946 – Popular Canadian American jockey George Woolf suffers a concussion during a freak racing accident; he dies from the injury the following day. The annual George Woolf Memorial Jockey Award is created to honor him. 1947 – Proceedings of the U.S. Congress are televised for the first time. 1949 – The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, the central bank of the Philippines, is established. 1953 – Frances P. Bolton and her son, Oliver from Ohio, become the first mother and son to serve simultaneously in the U.S. Congress. 1956 – A fire damages the top part of the Eiffel Tower. 1957 – The Hamilton Watch Company introduces the first electric watch. 1958 – The West Indies Federation is formed.[ 1959 – Alaska is admitted as the 49th U.S. state.

[westeroswisdom]

This bit of Medieval history from England will sound somewhat familiar.

Henry I sired two dozen or more children out of wedlock. But with his queen, Matilda, he had only a daughter, the future “Empress” Matilda, and a son, William. With William’s birth, the foremost responsibility of medieval queenship was fulfilled: There would be a male heir. Then tragedy struck. In 1120, a drunken 17-year-old William attempted a nighttime crossing of the English Channel. When his also-inebriated helmsmen hit a rock, the prince drowned.

Kids, don't go sailing when drunk. An accident could lead to a war of succession.

The queen had died two years earlier, so Henry remarried. But he and his second wife, Adeliza of Louvain, had no children together. The cradle sat empty, and the sands in Henry’s hourglass ran low, so he resolved that his lone legitimate child, Matilda, would take the throne as a ruling queen. The move was unprecedented in medieval England. A queen could exert influence in her husband’s physical absence or when, after a king’s death, their son was a minor. Her role, moreover, as an intimate confidant and counselor could be consequential.

A quick reminder that this was 400+ years before Mary I – England's first female reigning monarch. They were still speaking Middle English in the early 12th century.

But a queen was not expected to swing a sword or lead troops into battle and forge the personal loyalties on which kingship rested, to say nothing of the misogyny inherent in medieval English society. The queen was the conduit through which power was transferred by marriage and childbirth, not its exclusive wielder. [ ... ] Henry I pursued measures to make his daughter palatable to them. Matilda, who had married the Holy Roman Emperor Henry V in 1114, returned to England a widow in 1125. Henry I, determined to forge a sacramental bond between his daughter and England’s magnates, compelled his barons in 1127 to swear their support for her as his successor. Henry I then turned to arranging a marriage for Matilda so she could give birth to a grandson and buttress her position.

After Matilda’s nuptials with Geoffrey, Count of Anjou, the barons were summoned to renew their oath to her in 1131. A son, Henry, was born two years later, and a third pledge followed. Henry I died two years later of food poisoning after eating eels, a favorite dish of his.

Of course, all hell breaks loose after the king dies.

Stephen of Blois, a son from the marriage of Henry I’s sister Adela to a French count, aggressively registered a claim to the crown after Henry I’s death. Many English magnates conveniently forgot their oaths to Matilda, and Stephen became king. Matilda was not without supporters: her half-brother Robert, Earl of Gloucester; her husband, the Count of Anjou; nobles disaffected by Stephen’s rule; and opportunists seeking personal gain from the conflict. Matilda resisted, and the Anarchy ensued. Forces supporting Matilda invaded England in 1139, but save for a moment in 1141, she never ruled. She then focused instead on elevating her son to the crown.

Military success speaks louder than oaths or pledges.

Prosecution of the war ultimately passed to the young Henry. His mounting military successes jogged the barons’ memory of their past commitments, and the contending parties reached a settlement. Henry would succeed Stephen. With Stephen’s death, Henry became Henry II.

It isn't exactly like the Targaryen civil war but the themes are similar.

Matilda, daughter of Henry I and mother of Henry II.

[scotianostra]

On October 14th 1714, a declaration issued by James VIII said that apart from himself, there were 57 descendants of James VI who had a better claim to the British throne than George, Elector of Hanover.

James Stuart, also known in history as the ‘Old Pretender' ( was the son of James II, whose Roman Catholic faith saw him deposed in what became known as the Glorious Revolution of 1688/89 when he was replaced  by William and Mary. 

In 1714, when George I succeeded Queen Anne, James Stuart was exiled in France.  James sought support from Scotland for the return of a Catholic monarch and proceeded to spend the rest of his life plotting and leading uprisings/revolts from abroad against the Hanover line 

The Declaration of James Stuart was issued from Lorraine in France and distributed in both manuscript and printed form to the leading members of England's nobility.  It begins with a brief history of James' claim to the throne, a promise of what England could be under his rule and claimed that, had Queen Anne lived longer, she would have been favourable to his cause. The first pic is a transcript fro UK parliament records.

This wasn.t the only declaration made by James and his supporters. the second pic shows a handbill addressed ‘to all true-hearted Scotsmen’ to restore James Francis Edward to the throne, on 1st January 1715, it was all part of a continued propaganda campaign to raise awareness and support for the uprisings that followed. It reads;

To all True-Hearted SCOTSMEN, whether Soldiers or Others.

When our Brave and Ancient Nation is like to be engag’d in War, I think it is every Man’s Business to consider, That whatever may be said in Defence of Soldiers of Fortune fighting in foreign Countries (when perhaps it is neither so easy, nor so much the Duty of Strangers to consider the Quarrel) yet no Man can, with any Shew of Reason, plead the Lawfulness of making War a Trade, when it comes to be Civil or Domestic. In this Case, ‘tis only the Lawfulness of the Cause, and the Good of his Country that can warrant any Man to engage in it: For if he embark on the wrong Side, from a Principle of Interest, or any selfish Consideration, every Slaughter he makes of a contrary Party is a fresh Murder; and if he falls himself he goes to the Devil for Hire. By the Earl of Mar’s Manifesto we find, That the present Quarrel turns upon these Two Points, be Restoring our Lawful Natural King. And the Dissolving the Union: Both which should be [seriously] weigh’d by all Scotsmen, being of the utmost Importance, both on the Score of Conscience, Hour, and Interest. As to the Restoring to His Throne King JAMES VIII. Whatever some Men’s Interest may [prompt] them to say or do; yet I’m confident, that in our secret Thought we are agreed, That He our Lawful Rightful Sovereign: And we all know, that He is the Undoubted Lineal Heir by [blood] and Descendant of the Ancient Race of our Scottish Kings: whose Ancestors, in a direct [line], have sway’d the Sceptre in our Hereditary Monarchy for many Generations, without Cont.; a Prince upon whom the Crown is entail’d by the Fundamental Laws of our Country, and to whom, even before He was born, we have often sworn Allegiance and Fealty by those Oaths given former Kings, by which we bound ourselves not only to them, but to their Lawful Heirs and accessors. …… BUT whether a King and Parliament had Power to alter the Succession, or not, never any Man, before [1688], except the Rump Parliament, pretended, that a Meeting without a King, or without any Authority from Him, had Power to make void the Throne; which was, in effect, to unhinge the Monarchy, and razethe Constitution from the very Foundation. They who contriv’d [thought up] the Scheme, both here and in England, were so sensible of the Weakness of their Arguments to satisfy the Minds of the People, that they were forc’d to bring in a Supplemental Topic, The illegitimacy of the Prince of Wales’s Birth [suggestion here that that Charles Francis Edward was not the true son of James II-hence call him the “Old Pretender”] So impudent a Piece of Slander, that, however serviceable it was to their Interest to make it appear, and however frequently challenged to do so, they never durst bring it to a fair Trial. THINGS being thus, (as I don’t doubt but you are very sensible they are) Pray, Gentlemen, consider whether you are safe, either in Conscience or Honour, to draw your Swords for so precarious and ill-founded an Establishment. I should be unwilling to think, that in the present Case, Soldiers should consider the Justice of the Cause less than other Men, because they are more concerned than others, being the chief Actors in any Blood and Slaughter that may ensue: and he that sheds the Blood of his Fellow-subjects and Countrymen, probably his Brethren and nearest Relations, in a Cause that he cannot show to be just, will give the World but a slender Opinion either of his Religion or good Sense. As you would then approve your selves to God, the World, and your selves to be Christians, Men of Honour, and Scotsmen, consider seriously before you draw your Swords, whom you are to fight against, and what you fight for........

The third pic is also from 1715prior to the /15 Uprising rising under way, James VIII declares himself to be the lawful king and states his readiness to reclaim his crown.

He highlights the foreign nature of the House of Hanover and encourages support in Scotland with a claim he will restore the country to its independent state.

James Stuart died in 1766, leaving his son Charles, 'Bonnie Prince Charlie' to continue to pursue his claim to the English throne.

[noirandchocolate]

For those interested, the section of the US Constitution the Colorado Court applied is Amendment XIV, Section 3, which reads as follows:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

This provision was included in the 14th Amendment when it was enacted after the Civil War, to prevent former government officials who joined the Confederacy from reclaiming their seats.

One of if not THE biggest legal question (among many many others involving procedure and jurisdiction/separation of powers) in this case is whether the provision applies to a President who engages in insurrection. This is at issue because the explicit list of offices at the start of the text doesn't include "President," but the section does say "or hold ANY office . . . under the United States."

The Colorado district court found that Trump did engage in insurrection on January 6, 2021, but interpreted Section 3 not to include Presidents. The state's Supreme Court agreed with the first part but disagreed with the second part, finding that

a) the Presidency falls under "any office under the United States," while by contrast Senators, Representatives, and electors had to be specifically listed because they are NOT "offices" but "memberships." In this part of the opinion the Court also rejected Trump's argument that the President is not an office "under" the US because it "is" the government of the US, finding that this interpretation would undermine the basic principle of US democracy that the government exists for "the people."

b) the President is "an officer of the United States" for purposes of the part of the section requiring that the person in question have taken an oath "as" such an official.

c) the Presidential oath is an "oath to support the Constitution," since Article II of said Constitution clearly states that the President must swear an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution." The Court rejected Trump's argument that "well those verbs don't include 'support'~" finding it to be basically garbage since 1) the President is also an executive officer of the US and Article VI states that such officers are bound by an oath to "support" the Constitution and 2) come on, preserve, protect, and defend are all verbs that imply support.

If you click the link in the OP labeled "full ruling and dissents," these holdings are found on pages 70-88 of the opinion.

PS: This case relates to the Republican primary ballot and currently only affects Colorado. However, it does set a precedent for other state courts to make similar findings. States aren't bound to all do the same thing as each other, but state courts will often cite each others' reasoning as helpful guidance if similar suits are brought in their own jurisdictions.

(source) (full ruling and dissents)

[cromwellrex2]

The Restoration: ‘As to things of State - the King settled and loved of all’

The Compromise Settlement of Charles II

King Charles II by John Michael Wright. Source: Wikipedia

FOR MANY former supporters of the Parliamentary cause, the Restoration must have been hard to take. For all the warm words of the Declaration of Breda, it must have felt to those that had followed John Pym, Arthur Heselrige, Oliver Cromwell and John Lambert, and especially the comrades of John Lilburne, that their own world had been turned upside down. For the Restoration, in so many ways, was precisely that. Not only was Charles II settled on his throne which in truth, by 1660, all but the most ardent republicans believed was the only way out of the constitutional impasse the Commonwealth had found itself in, but the House of Lords was re-established; the Church of England, including a hierarchy of bishops was reintroduced; the New Model Army was abolished and even the Divine Right of Kings was reinstated. It must have seemed to the advocates of the Good Old Cause that all those years of tumult, death and revolution were for naught: the Monarchy and all its works was back with a vengeance.

And of course, there was indeed vengeance. As described last time, the regicides that were still alive were pursued mercilessly by the new government, even the dead not being safe from the King’s wrath. In addition, the so-called “Cavalier Parliament” consisting of triumphal Royalist MPs, presided in many respects over a victor’s peace. The disestablishment of the New Model Army was, after the executions of the regicides, the most visible sign of a restored monarchy. The Army had been the instrument of Charles I’s defeat and the constant protector of the Commonwealth, and it had also been a major political player that forcibly dissolved Parliament after Parliament. To see this formidable military force that had destroyed the Royalist armies, crushed the Scots and ended the Irish Rebellion, simply disappear was no clearer sign that not only was the Parliamentary cause dead, but that the gravest threat to the Stuart regime was also no more - and without a shot being fired. The successor regiments that later became the Coldstream Guards and the Royal Horse Guards, comprised the core of a 7,000 man militia, loyal solely to the monarch - a situation that Charles I had long craved. These regiments would become the basis of the standing British Army, whose oath of loyalty remains to the monarch - an echo of the settlement of England’s civil wars.

Charles’ religious settlement was, on the face of it, a restoration of the Anglican Church in its prewar form. Episcopalianism was back, including in Scotland, supported by a new Book of Common Prayer. Bishops were also readmitted to a restored House of Lords, where they sit still. Despite Charles’ Breda promises of religious toleration, the Solemn League and Covenant was repealed, and the cause which had spurred the Scots into rebellion and war against the King’s government in the late 1630s was effectively suppressed. Although Charles himself was personally quite tolerant of different religious persuasions, including notoriously, Roman Catholicism, his Parliament was not. The confident Cavaliers remembered how hard the Presbyterians had tried to enforce their version of Protestantism on the three kingdoms; how the rule of the Major-Generals had tried to squeeze all joy out of Christian worship and, recalled with horror, the republicanism and threat to land ownership that millennial sects, sheltering within the ranks of the Levellers, had tried to introduce. A number of anti- Puritan bills were passed, most notably the Corporation Act of 1661 (which excluded non-Anglicans from public office) and the Five Mile Act of 1665 (which banned non-Anglican ministers from their former livings). These Acts effectively excluded Presbyterians and other low church groups from participating in the new political or religious establishment. This led ultimately to these disenfranchised faithful into forming their own churches. They called themselves Nonconformists and Dissenters, eventually formalising themselves into the various strands of Methodism. Within these churches the spirit of anti-Royalist and Anglican sentiment remained, leading ultimately to eighteenth century radicalism and part of the impulse that fuelled the desire for independence within Britain’s American colonies.

Scotland was freed of military occupation and its Parliament restored, but government garrison troops remained and Scotland never recovered the independent swagger it had enjoyed earlier in the century when it was able to interfere in the affairs of England and influence the outcomes of the civil wars with easy confidence. With its government impoverished and subservient, its independent military strength non-existent, its religion subordinated and the fault line between Highland and Lowland populations exacerbated by the civil wars, Scotland was a shadow of its prewar self. The days of routine Scottish invasions of England were over forever. In less than fifty years, Scotland’s mercantile class, faced with bankruptcy following catastrophic economic decisions and ill-advised colonial adventures, would petition the English Parliament and Crown for an Act of Union, granted in 1707, which would make the United Kingdom a political, as well as a monarchical, reality.

In Ireland, Charles’ government was focused and ensuring rebellion did not recur and made great efforts to rehabilitate, and reconcile with, the landowning Old English aristocracy and breaking the religious solidarity with the Old Irish rural workers and peasants that had driven so much of the rebellion’s early success. Charles’ own pro-Catholic sympathies helped this process, but he also did little to restrain Scottish Protestant settlement in the north and west, thus sowing the seeds of a sectarian conflict that would get ever more vicious over the next three hundred years.

But the Restoration was not absolute and Charles did not intend it to be, whatever the attitudes of the Cavalier Parliament. Charles had not spent half his life prior to his return on the run in order to simply repeat the mistakes of his father. Although not the constitutional monarch envisaged by George Monck, Charles nonetheless attempted to rule in partnership with Parliament. For Charles, his Divine Right to rule was a device to secure his legitimacy, not a principle by which a king should govern. There were several political factors that caused Charles to eventually dissolve the Cavalier Parliament in 1679, but new elections were held immediately. Unlike his father, Charles was never tempted by Personal Rule and was rarely in dispute with his Parliaments, unlike his predecessor governments. Parliamentary rule was solidified under Charles’ settlement in a way unimaginable in the years leading up to the civil wars.

Similarly, for all the anti-Puritanism of his regime, there was no systematic persecution of dissenters and no legal requirement for his subjects to adopt the new Prayer Book or the Anglican Communion. In Ireland, the ferocious oppression of Catholics and Irish self-determination was still in the future, and that would be driven principally by Protestant settlers, exacerbated significantly by the renewal of civil conflict in Ireland in the late 1680s. Charles was a cautious and astute man. His love affair with particularly, the English, population, had significantly dissipated by the end of his reign, but all his subjects, whatever their views of his government, were grateful to him for ensuring peace was maintained and that the conflicts that had led the inhabitants of the British Isles to fight and kill each other for years, were not reignited.

The immediate view of history, that lasted well into the nineteenth century, was that the British civil wars and the republican experiment were anomalies, best forgotten. The skill of the Stuart and Hanoverian regimes in suggesting the civil wars were no more than a family quarrel, quickly forgiven and forgotten, is the reason why there is no direct link between the proto-socialism of the Putney Debates and the the later Radicalism of the eighteenth century. Issues such as land reform and universal suffrage were effectively barred from public debate for 150 years.

Charles’ later reign did contain conflict and there was even a Radical attempt to kidnap the King at one point, but the most dangerous issue was that of the succession. A new political Parliamentary party, with a sneaking admiration for the Good Old Cause, called the Whigs, was formed determined to prevent the accession of Charles’ brother the openly Roman Catholic James, to the throne given the absence of a legitimate heir to Charles. A staunchly Royalist group which became known as the Tories formed to oppose the Whigs and support the Stuart succession. Thus the contours of future Parliamentary debate and factionalism began to take shape.

In February 1685, Charles died. There was, in the event, no challenge initially to James ascending the throne as King James II. However, the new monarch resembled his father in a haughty attitude and political ineptitude. The conflicts that drove civil wars would be reprised and, once again, absolute monarchy would be the loser.

[libidomechanica]

Is ample warrant thought, if Sovereign Yoke

A tricube sequence

               I

Kiss and why he rest on the day spending

airs they wither’d in evening. Is

ample warrant thought, if Sovereign Yoke.

               II

Still. At fourteen I married Lamia

judg’d, and Mankind. The imprisoned

not holds a straight line fallen in vain!

               III

To Company belovèd alike?

Into a fine thy brow; and leader

of thee in the evil tongue be still.

               IV

You can’t seen of its earnest to say

thy monumental Brass: high and praise;

now pray we for Women, Paine doth grow?

               V

An’ it winna let a body be.

Is safer: out upon his eye discern

the heate so great lords are forests.

               VI

Not, nor no less age. Teach you bout the

Breach wounded old dreaming is too late

cars which he the lawful Government.

               VII

Of these the People give rewards before

incense rare. Today when have once

to the secret tears; yet not a Slaves.

               VIII

To admonitions Vows deny’d, not

from its neighbour’d to breed another

way. Was used to think to the gods in?

               IX

His Crime. Tis better smile? Proud Egypt

would Curb my Spirits that dandled your

swear the slabbed steps with such a Cause?

               X

The modest virgin purest scented

with mankinds Delight away. I’d

say This faulding in postering me.

               XI

I’m o’er young, I’m feared ye’d spoiled for. View

their eye and loose Carriers his Wit.

Since the publick Liberty began.

               XII

Grows controlled with being this short the

summer heart of your more perhaps his

perversely our body be. And sleep.

               XIII

And, if to shew my love nor her worse

essays prove. The flood I drink up the

scorn with the terrace—all and erasèd.

               XIV

A beauty up, leaving gentle sported;

thought holes. You might that Lycius

charioteer and hail once i am bleed.

               XV

His Love of tyrannie? With oaths, fair works

did Nature made Obnoxious to buoy

the wrinkling popularly Mad?

               XVI

While I love you, I engraue in my veins.

Silent; but descending Clyde therefore

did the million’d of alabaster.

               XVII

A man and wisely Joyn, the not do

they had obey’d an Idoll Monarchy.

To leave met her sigh’d, or belief.

               XVIII

And I believe it. Then laws were friendship

False, false to forsake the air is

full; by all thy revenge did mercy!

               XIX

All the forever wauks. Softly, Grace;

yet each unbounded the neck was rosed

with dew. Which, snatcht in Masquerade.

               XX

Thy teares a hope to flow. Yet I

shoulders bare of all one, ever, when

our only live in deathful fancy.

               XXI

While gazing on, till with relief undoes

yours, it is to breaks with Maiesty.

Had it a little bent upon me.

               XXII

Mothers throughout hope, life, and the

Government it sounded too little for

me. Ever show, who, moving her teeth.

               XXIII

And dark, has exercis’d the page—the

end is prey. And what could sooner fight;

tis Apollo when two or thou art!

               XXIV

A Church and light? They turned each me thy

beauty walks this way to say, mine distant

electron waits his eyes sent too.

               XXV

Limbs: he rolls of that hides always does.

Some want to say, Remember being

a cockney ear. With a sweet fingers.

               XXVI

Might seems, to take it Sir, ’ and pointing

shame! But Ida with round her Ground: they

glared upon their Humour of basalt.

               XXVII

My wealth, and sweet flower, or to survive.

Our enemies have don’t know somewhere

she smiling over Civil Wars.

               XXVIII

Then some other us. Kind Husbands

and pray. All night, and rashly judge his

Cellars, and wayward against my part.

               XXIX

Thought to get marry yet; I’m o’er the

punch. Whatever young to drop equals

the brave as all above her towers.

               XXX

Till his harlotte Street, Home, Euclid,

Decatur, Union, Straubs, Rebecca, Bennett

Ave. Of Lethe noise overhead.

               XXXI

When Kings. Hers burn clear sprite, disdains my

Mothers fall eat thy helpless was, but

when thou might be freër under so!

               XXXII

Palatine mulciber’s core: not these

for me. I sat in sigh; and Peals of

metal, those two at her father’s day?

               XXXIII

And led a hundred maybe, blacke seem’d

of Summer in the grueling watch and

such soothe my essence, the pestilence!

               XXXIV

And now we reached at th’ unequal

Fates, and tired. The need to attend

a temper of all of us.

               XXXV

Only wedding fears, I am going

about. One day you went them up,

gotten, and drags me deaf and your Reign?

               XXXVI

Directly in another he wondrous

mountain- side, with love. Native course

untrimm’d; and as they rightfully sing?

               XXXVII

You wert not at all it a fear and

hospitality. Cold words and hid

and thy mother’d at dew so sweet babes?

               XXXVIII

When e’r their Brains his golden chaine there

is the lord, whose two are only,

carefully? Once would free and past a shades.

               XXXIX

Royalty the place. Some lucky

Revolution, sent in the drops of your

glory is thing. On the Cherries me.

               XL

Down in the Wise. The golden pomp is

companied with such a kiss&hands, from

his books anointed dar’d, when he sang.

               XLI

When Goethe has died of euerie image which

to its breast too much burning, and traps

of me, which may not how far awa.

               XLII

No eye where she meek came with the sea.

To truth askance and I, in more clear.

And by the tempers a thousand doat.

               XLIII

The quaystones you keep her leafy

locks of books so he burning, happy

Love! If thou art a schoolmaster out?

               XLIV

But now for Blinds! And nurse, to walk … if

simply as the chickens, hoeing yams,

call Jebusites your life design’d.

               XLV

And now, the made. They said with delight,

who wore the soft and pale with

melancholy understanding across me.

               XLVI

Sighs, and the Duchess’ cheeks alightings

brings with what will he found, and then did

ride, so weeping an hour: come to me.

               XLVII

Let go. It’s no the time sheep and wear

thy dear to year forgot; cool waves might

I not lie open shouts of this grow?

               XLVIII

But Common Teutonic shade. Which the

Day, misguide with my signet are mingle

self as filchers mingled, while faint!

               XLIX

Some this Disease in both one deep chamber

her breast, my friend and note, and the

full of the Wise. The vi’lets spring?

               L

His clumsy hold; and Turbulent of

his and past a shadows dire. In

simmer, sir; and wide, sam slips will be!

               LI

Oh that wasn’t it. Oh that your eyes of

a Democrat, autocrat— one who

once she will was hot, and Paradise.

               LII

Tree and ask thus. To kiss than to

advancing, lustful, secret flower, on

a descend, no True Successors Reign?

               LIII

Yes; and hour in each a we-see poem.

And due to live in dear soul of

the Record, by that which gifts, unknown?

               LIV

To thy longings to hastens on things,

tan sacred Prophets rage: the People

of Dung. It will tak me eerie, sir.

               LV

Doubt there wet with no knowable

envelope, within, applying underfoot.

Knelt on one, bend&curve against you.

               LVI

And it has ears to plaintive moan, I

mournful gloomy Winter, if her liue.

Oh lift my ain death do, if they brim.

               LVII

When to Sin our neighbour parts maimed, I

am that to mow: and as the princes

Son. Of ashes all of the heath!

               LVIII

What Standard is there. For though stress, with

brighter; and he whose cureless Lump,

like the mind prints his eyes in small hand.

               LIX

And blear-eyed fly to the slender shook

the punch. Slow- stepp’d, yet doth grace, like a

stone, or not beauty’s field nods its head?

               LX

I sweare he cannot be the toes. Despair,

half-lapt in glowing to thy teares

expresses high degree, whom King?

               LXI

Round, round the most fervent and Prophets

Sons of this face. With Oaths affirm’d, with

his Feet. The first crack open before.

               LXII

Into a shadow, like bowls If you

said fair Scotia hame and lay the Sage

bed! Sweet babe yet in heart’s core: no more.

               LXIII

The banners that mind advance aside.

Yet she will belief undoes you and

I rose in me. In acrylic fur.

               LXIV

Made old Enthusiastick breed of each

into traffic. And all her sake; but

stay, in true old Enthusiastick breed.

               LXV

When I am calling, that all. When

I was afraid lest she were the whispered

lowly mind without here, I say?

               LXVI

Round, each unbounded, issuing

ordinary wife, the corner strange and

justifi’d the fingers light shower.

               LXVII

If thou return. In day and thrice o’er

there in the royal right moon on my

breathe upon a thronelet, the bays.

               LXVIII

They still were born to virgin mantle,

and peace, then. Who nere confined doors to

bear unless wilds; her eternal life?

               LXIX

Body join’d experience too; so

much burning, our body be. And in

extremes decry’d; with her golden breast.

               LXX

In vain? Me, whose part as their moon-faced

in perfect strain her feet of sea and

all Breast, my free from thy dewy down.

               LXXI

Fair Hermes prick their own. If thou return

that’s far remote, still swollen shuns

the dust to thine Image through my hate.

               LXXII

I saw, and to-day, he’ll let me known.

And mantle in the Yellow Autumn,

dropping of fresh and why is it man.

               LXXIII

With cold Cause receives his fear, that roars

before, that shin’st thou art. The Southern

sky; thy tears The lone Eternity.

               LXXIV

And rumour of ice exchange the way,

the table ash or the warm on

amorous was a Fool. Beyond his wont.

               LXXV

By some gentle as freedom or reason

at all to the thou art thou, when

Hells dire. We face the couering death.

               LXXVI

Vista of year forgotten loose

Carriers his Estate; where, please. I said

fra Pandolf’s hands so lately take you.

               LXXVII

Let go. That their face, the turned half-shut

feathers in such the command; to your

Sacred Property were all possessed.

               LXXVIII

And, replies: the sober part of fitful

dreams of thee die! Ceased Course, to leave.

At once, some quiet in any room.

               LXXIX

Waits with me. That fond will the bone. And

even now in port of Europe’s

latter down, and last year’s lease you made.

               LXXX

Since I have been fitted in a blasting

swift of the needs must never dye,

love you ended bosoms fits! Tonight?

               LXXXI

It surely die. Now on the prey to

the State, as them up: she saw the grasses

pricking thy worth but she shoots will.

               LXXXII

Over thro’ the spoke, and the mind, and

ask the rivers, stay! The cloudy rack,

south-westward to turn the Jebusite.

               LXXXIII

In this horse louder gale hand die a

meteor, and there we will soothe my

essence? Yet I sense is due at all.

               LXXXIV

Thus truly fair weathers, flutter from

car to me! Rush hour, I shall forward

the arms to holds a pane of us.

               LXXXV

Harsh and prunes. They, sunlight euen thou want

to a cause it’s like an unresist

not bring? Ran the glory of a worse.

               LXXXVI

My wrong, to the Noble still front it

so. Since saucy jacket as you stop

posterity, which, coupling Despair.

               LXXXVII

The Jews Rebell. And other Errors

that nest and put the date of his

cruelties of our immortality.

               LXXXVIII

In me nothing here, to be too near

pool, where awake! Singing couldn’t be some

dull and each other till weary lust?

               LXXXIX

Loyalty? That was it that that his

Goodness growes one was, transform the

dear to some vial; treasure shadows.

               XC

Nor his own, and briefly the tide: an

universal influence of my

Plot. Of shrieked the backward by the pure?

               XCI

And my jewel. The solitude, to spoil

his eye plunged down son, to nurse, to two

or the stool, she, whose tears in the vale?

               XCII

I gave our new hands, now set a wrath

shalt find your palaces where those tallest

hope, of love. In the cold woman.

               XCIII

I miss him raised, and when in thee it

is to kill instead of this blest: heaven!

Self-involved; but with oxygen.

               XCIV

It not; she young, ’twad be a signifies

me giddy, makes my wings, tho’ poor

rhyme. Her thrown into absent night holes.

               XCV

Eyes, was call’d from the Mighty Years, of

spices the plain, swoon’d, tis time, O passion

ev’rywhere. Amid mats of mine?

               XCVI

From the elevator i crouched at

the Jews Rebell. And some wander shade.

The bay crown’d wi’ plunder; and which words.

               XCVII

For human sideways, as free in sunny

mead and rashly judge a Cause. And

you inside your lips with endless praise.

               XCVIII

For your selves as stone here thou bring a

silver snow carefully? The will fall

that hope, of gratified thirsts appear!

               XCIX

Where they steps, and due to languish drear,

hot, glaz’d, and clouds, as long, up in my

rhyme. Then, whether did most most my way.

               C

Israel was declar’d when Nature’s gently

swannish music. Whose Oath to walk

… if simple grew lucent electrons.

               CI

A beauty being as I contemns

poverty?: Out spake: when fire they by

my poor solitudes, that to flow.