So you want to label the DC protest treason insurrection or rebellion.

[Rigby5]

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Sedition is a serious felony punishable by fines and up to 20 years in prison and it refers to the act of inciting revolt or violence against a lawful authority with the goal of destroying or overthrowing it

According to Merriam-Webster, "insurrection" is the "act of revolting against civil authority or an established government." Other definitions, like that of the Cambridge Dictionary, specify the act is usually a violent one. Synonyms include "revolt" or "uprising," according to Merriam-Webster.

The DC protest was not an act of rebellion or war. Trespass they may have been guilty of but so would most of the of the people who attended protests the last couple of years. The antifa azzwipes who captured and held part of Portland should have been tried for sedition and/or insurrection but weren't. Why not? And why the apparent double standard?

Wrong!

The attack on the Capitol was intended to stop the lawful certification of the Presidency. It was intended to undermine Democracy. It was both sedition and an insurrection.

And you know all of this because...? More importantly what evidence do you think can be presented in court to prove beyond a reasonable doubt those charges? Americans have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers. At least for the moment. We would like to retain that right which is why they were there.

The evidence to support sedition as well as insurrection has been broadcast on TV. That is prima facie evidence which has no defense. Maybe you need to read very closely the US Code, the elements for both the former (sedition) and the latter (insurrection); in some cases, treason, which may be more difficult to prove, but is not to be ignored.

I've seen TV and have seen no evidence of what you claim. You are begging the question which probably indicates that you have simply jumped to an unprovable conclusion. Care to try again? Or is this an admission you have no clue what you're talking about?

What you have seen on TV was a riot by a mob. Period, end of debate.

Nonsense.
A riot is when people want to harm the rights of someone, like looters for example.
This was only for political expression, with absolutely nothing to be personally gained by it.
If you want to actually call anyone rioters, then the closest to that were the police, who were acting only for money, and were making no sacrifice, expression of ideals, or any redeeming motive in any way.
The police were just greedy, while the protestors were ONLY sacrificing for the ideal of a democratic republic.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Really? I don't believe a word of it. I was in the Army in training in San Francisco in 1969 just prior to deployment to Vietnam. I know far more than I would like about what left wing scumbag rioters can, do, and have gotten away with in the name of free speech and protest.

I separated from active duty on Treasure Island in April of 1969. I know more about right wing scumbags on the sea and on the land.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Really? I don't believe a word of it. I was in the Army in training in San Francisco in 1969 just prior to deployment to Vietnam. I know far more than I would like about what left wing scumbag rioters can, do, and have gotten away with in the name of free speech and protest.

I separated from active duty on Treasure Island in April of 1969. I know more about right wing scumbags on the sea and on the land.

The only army training in SF that I know about might have been at the hospital in the Presidio.

 

[Turtlesoup]

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Sedition is a serious felony punishable by fines and up to 20 years in prison and it refers to the act of inciting revolt or violence against a lawful authority with the goal of destroying or overthrowing it

According to Merriam-Webster, "insurrection" is the "act of revolting against civil authority or an established government." Other definitions, like that of the Cambridge Dictionary, specify the act is usually a violent one. Synonyms include "revolt" or "uprising," according to Merriam-Webster.

The DC protest was not an act of rebellion or war. Trespass they may have been guilty of but so would most of the of the people who attended protests the last couple of years. The antifa azzwipes who captured and held part of Portland should have been tried for sedition and/or insurrection but weren't. Why not? And why the apparent double standard?

Wrong!

The attack on the Capitol was intended to stop the lawful certification of the Presidency. It was intended to undermine Democracy. It was both sedition and an insurrection.

it's a rebellion against corruption and our corrupt congress.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Really? I don't believe a word of it. I was in the Army in training in San Francisco in 1969 just prior to deployment to Vietnam. I know far more than I would like about what left wing scumbag rioters can, do, and have gotten away with in the name of free speech and protest.

I separated from active duty on Treasure Island in April of 1969. I know more about right wing scumbags on the sea and on the land.

The only army training in SF that I know about might have been at the hospital in the Presidio.

And that's exactly where I was doing OJT and 91C training. At Letterman General USAH. Are you going to try to claim you were a LEO there? I never saw one anywhere around while the hippies rioted and committed illegal and treasonous acts in public streets and USArmy property. I saw young soldiers pelted with filth and assaulted. I worked on a MP trying to help save his sight after he had battery acid thrown in his eyes. Where were the LEOs? Where were the arrests and trials? You must have been Navy or you are lying.

 

[Agit8r]

Whisky Rebels didn't try to overthrow the government

The other examples are less relevant

NEXT!

 

[9thIDdoc]

Whisky Rebels didn't try to overthrow the government

The other examples are less relevant

NEXT!

The "whiskey rebels" were in armed rebellion against the Federal government's imposition of a new whiskey tax. Just like the tea tax and attempted gun control sparked the American revolution. Read.

 

[Agit8r]

Whisky Rebels didn't try to overthrow the government

The other examples are less relevant

NEXT!

The "whiskey rebels" were in armed rebellion against the Federal government's imposition of a new whiskey tax. Just like the tea tax and attempted gun control sparked the American revolution. Read.

It was an important chapter in early history. They never laid an armed seige of the legislature though. It isn't comparable.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Whisky Rebels didn't try to overthrow the government

The other examples are less relevant

NEXT!

The "whiskey rebels" were in armed rebellion against the Federal government's imposition of a new whiskey tax. Just like the tea tax and attempted gun control sparked the American revolution. Read.

It was an important chapter in early history. They never laid an armed seige of the legislature though. It isn't comparable.

The protestors in DC didn't either. The earlier American revolutionaries didn't lay siege to the King or his British Government either. You list an imaginary definition for "rebellion" that didn't apply even had it been correct. They also didn't assault Pope John the Irrelevant. So what?

 

[Aletheia4u]

If so we are also going to have to relabel one or several doz. historical conflicts we tend to forget about.

Whiskey Rebellion, (1794), in American history, uprising that afforded the new U.S. government its first opportunity to establish federal authority by military means within state boundaries, as officials moved into western Pennsylvania to quell an uprising of settlers rebelling against the liquor tax. Alexander Hamilton, secretary of the treasury, had proposed the excise (enacted by Congress in 1791, the first national internal revenue tax) to raise money for the national debt and to assert the power of the national government. Small farmers of the backcountry distilled (and consumed) whiskey, which was easier to transport and sell than the grain that was its source. It was an informal currency, a means of livelihood, and an enlivener of a harsh existence. The distillers resisted the tax by attacking (often tarring and feathering) federal revenue officers who attempted to collect it.

Utah War AKA Mormon rebellion
In 1857–58, President James Buchanan sent U.S. forces to the Utah Territory in what became known as the Utah Expedition. The Mormons, fearful that the large U.S. military force had been sent to annihilate them and having faced persecution in other areas,[7] made preparations for defense. Though bloodshed was to be avoided, and the U.S. government also hoped that its purpose might be attained without the loss of life, both sides prepared for war. The Mormons manufactured or repaired firearms, turned scythes into bayonets, and burnished and sharpened long-unused sabres.

The confrontation between the Mormon militia, called the Nauvoo Legion, and the U.S. Army involved some destruction of property and a few brief skirmishes in what is today southwestern Wyoming, but no battles occurred between the contending military forces.

At the height of the tensions, on September 11, 1857, between 95 and 120 California-bound settlers from Arkansas, Missouri and other states, including unarmed men, women and children, were killed in remote southwestern Utah by a group of local Mormon militia.[10] They first claimed that the migrants were killed by Indians but it was proven otherwise. This event was later called the Mountain Meadows Massacre and the motives behind the incident remain unclear.[11]

The Aiken massacre took place the following month. In October 1857, Mormons arrested six Californians traveling through Utah and charged them with being spies for the U.S. Army. They were released but were later murdered and robbed of their stock and $25,000.[12][13]

Pontiac's War, also known as Pontiac's Conspiracy or Pontiac's Rebellion, was launched in 1763 by a loose confederation of American Indian tribes, primarily from the Great Lakes region, the Illinois Country, and Ohio Country who were dissatisfied with British policies in the Great Lakes region following the French and Indian War (1754–1763). Warriors from numerous tribes joined the uprising in an effort to drive British soldiers and settlers out of the region. The war is named after Odawa leader Pontiac, the most prominent of many Indian leaders in the conflict.
The war began in May 1763 when Native Americans were offended by the policies of British General Jeffery Amherst and attacked a number of British forts and settlements. Eight forts were destroyed and hundreds of colonists were killed or captured, with many more fleeing the region. Hostilities came to an end after British Army expeditions in 1764 led to peace negotiations over the next two years. The Native Americans were unable to drive away the British, but the uprising prompted the British government to modify the policies that had provoked the conflict.

TO BE CONTINUED-

Well this manufactured artificial riot wasn't a real riot.
I knew that there was something going to go down.
Ever since Pres. Trump appeared on stage announcing that he is going to run. That the Deep state moved in on him.
They've started filling into his supporters heads that they are going to have Black guys to rape their White daughters in order to get rid of the White race. And they are going open the borders to everyone. And they were going on with all sorts of silly stuff to aggravate Pres. Trump's supporters.
They were constantly instilling these narratives into their minds. Making them more and more angry and paranoid that Pres. Trump's supporters were talking about a revolution, and that is the mode that they wanted Pres. Trump's supporters to be in.
They were releasing inmates to attend Pres. Trump's rallies to attack his supporters so that his supporters will have to defend themselves. Hoping for a riot to break out. But Pres, trump's supporters did not fought back.
But The Deep state kept on arousing his supporters' all through his term.
These tactics they have used on other countries' and towards certain races in this country. They have been orchestrating uprising every where. .
Like the 9/11 incident, which they've manufactured that incident by playing on the minds on certain groups of people. That the Deep state created arouses certain middle easterner's anger by mistreating them but making sure that there is no justice for them. Provoking them into becoming a revolutionary. And then they will have a person in their country like a prince to infiltrate and fund them. Paying for their flight lessons and whatever they need. And then the Deep state opens the gate allowing them to fly on through.
They've been playing on people's intelligence for decades. That is why they are so good at what they do. Remember they called these organizations Intelligence agencies, which it means that they play on people's intelligence.
Years ago, Iraq and Iran were colonialized. The women didn't have to covered themselves up. They have dressed like ordinary people. But now, they dresses the way they use to dressed back centuries ago.
They have control over our minds. like the trendies for an example. That the Deep state created these trends. Like women tattooing their bodies. Which these trends shows them who they have under their spell.
People who follows others shows that they are insecure about themselves. That their minds are easily to manipulate.
But the Deep state still have control over some conservative's minds. Like what ever they see, they do it. That these people have low self-esteem. Always wanting to belong to a group like the Republicans.
God gave us free-will, but why are some still following others people's patterns?

 

[Richard-H]

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Sedition is a serious felony punishable by fines and up to 20 years in prison and it refers to the act of inciting revolt or violence against a lawful authority with the goal of destroying or overthrowing it

According to Merriam-Webster, "insurrection" is the "act of revolting against civil authority or an established government." Other definitions, like that of the Cambridge Dictionary, specify the act is usually a violent one. Synonyms include "revolt" or "uprising," according to Merriam-Webster.

The DC protest was not an act of rebellion or war. Trespass they may have been guilty of but so would most of the of the people who attended protests the last couple of years. The antifa azzwipes who captured and held part of Portland should have been tried for sedition and/or insurrection but weren't. Why not? And why the apparent double standard?

Wrong!

The attack on the Capitol was intended to stop the lawful certification of the Presidency. It was intended to undermine Democracy. It was both sedition and an insurrection.

And you know all of this because...? More importantly what evidence do you think can be presented in court to prove beyond a reasonable doubt those charges? Americans have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers. At least for the moment. We would like to retain that right which is why they were there.

I know all this because unlike yourself, I'm not an idiot.

Would you have us believe that this mob broke into the Capitol, assaulted Police officers, murdered police, chanted that they wanted to hang the Vice-President, had handcuffs to control hostages...really just wanted to dance a tango and trade recipes with the Congress People?

You may continue to play the "DUMB AS SHIT" role if you want, but don't expect the rest of America to be duped by your stupidity!!!

 

[Richard-H]

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Sedition is a serious felony punishable by fines and up to 20 years in prison and it refers to the act of inciting revolt or violence against a lawful authority with the goal of destroying or overthrowing it

According to Merriam-Webster, "insurrection" is the "act of revolting against civil authority or an established government." Other definitions, like that of the Cambridge Dictionary, specify the act is usually a violent one. Synonyms include "revolt" or "uprising," according to Merriam-Webster.

The DC protest was not an act of rebellion or war. Trespass they may have been guilty of but so would most of the of the people who attended protests the last couple of years. The antifa azzwipes who captured and held part of Portland should have been tried for sedition and/or insurrection but weren't. Why not? And why the apparent double standard?

Wrong!

The attack on the Capitol was intended to stop the lawful certification of the Presidency. It was intended to undermine Democracy. It was both sedition and an insurrection.

And you know all of this because...? More importantly what evidence do you think can be presented in court to prove beyond a reasonable doubt those charges? Americans have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers. At least for the moment. We would like to retain that right which is why they were there.

The evidence to support sedition as well as insurrection has been broadcast on TV. That is prima facie evidence which has no defense. Maybe you need to read very closely the US Code, the elements for both the former (sedition) and the latter (insurrection); in some cases, treason, which may be more difficult to prove, but is not to be ignored.

I've seen TV and have seen no evidence of what you claim. You are begging the question which probably indicates that you have simply jumped to an unprovable conclusion. Care to try again? Or is this an admission you have no clue what you're talking about?

What you have seen on TV was a riot by a mob. Period, end of debate.

So? Did you think the left had some kind of monopoly on riot by mob? The left has been seriously into it for almost 60 years now and maybe the worm has turned. Maybe it's time for the right to get in on all the fun and games. Maybe it's time for the left to (literally) pass the torch and watch the right burn buildings and vehicles and loot stores for awhile. Maybe it's time to step aside and learn what real violence looks like. I'm afraid you won't like it much but thank you so much for putting the cops in check and turning so many local and State leaders into timid permissive pussies.
Oh-in case you missed it-riot by mob is not treason or insurrection or rebellion. You guys have turned into an American tradition. Thanks again.

It's obvious that the intention of this mob was to stop the counting of the electoral votes - to undermine Democracy. That's violent insurrection.

 

[Richard-H]

I think we should label it the same way we label the BLM and ANTIFA actions.

Precious few here are honest enough to do so.

Those rioters are just criminal dirt bags, not traitorous dirt bags, but should be prosecuted also.

Those "rioters" are taxpaying generally law abidding citizens fed up with our corrupt congress----------

They may have been "taxpaying generally law abiding citizens" but now, by their own actions, are seditious traitors.

So prove it.

Discussing this with you is like trying to reason with a 2 year old. No matter how much proof is given, you're just going to come back with some childish denial.

Only an idiot would believe that this mob was not guilty of insurrection - something that you continue to prove with every post!

 

[9thIDdoc]

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Sedition is a serious felony punishable by fines and up to 20 years in prison and it refers to the act of inciting revolt or violence against a lawful authority with the goal of destroying or overthrowing it

According to Merriam-Webster, "insurrection" is the "act of revolting against civil authority or an established government." Other definitions, like that of the Cambridge Dictionary, specify the act is usually a violent one. Synonyms include "revolt" or "uprising," according to Merriam-Webster.

The DC protest was not an act of rebellion or war. Trespass they may have been guilty of but so would most of the of the people who attended protests the last couple of years. The antifa azzwipes who captured and held part of Portland should have been tried for sedition and/or insurrection but weren't. Why not? And why the apparent double standard?

Wrong!

The attack on the Capitol was intended to stop the lawful certification of the Presidency. It was intended to undermine Democracy. It was both sedition and an insurrection.

And you know all of this because...? More importantly what evidence do you think can be presented in court to prove beyond a reasonable doubt those charges? Americans have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers. At least for the moment. We would like to retain that right which is why they were there.

The evidence to support sedition as well as insurrection has been broadcast on TV. That is prima facie evidence which has no defense. Maybe you need to read very closely the US Code, the elements for both the former (sedition) and the latter (insurrection); in some cases, treason, which may be more difficult to prove, but is not to be ignored.

You definitely need to learn what you are talking about. Again:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Sedition is a serious felony punishable by fines and up to 20 years in prison and it refers to the act of inciting revolt or violence against a lawful authority with the goal of destroying or overthrowing it.

According to Merriam-Webster, "insurrection" is the "act of revolting against civil authority or an established government." Other definitions, like that of the Cambridge Dictionary, specify the act is usually a violent one. Synonyms include "revolt" or "uprising," according to Merriam-Webster.

re·volt an attempt to put an end to the authority of a person or body by rebelling.

rebellion definition
1 : opposition to one in authority or dominance. 2a : open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government. b : an instance of such defiance or resistance.

"prima facie evidence." ... A prima facie case is the establishment of a legally required rebuttable presumption.
What is or is not prima facie evidence must be determined in court as does "intent" as applied to any particular individual or case. Sorry, you don't get to decide such things. People who have been law enforce officers or supervisors should know such things.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Sedition is a serious felony punishable by fines and up to 20 years in prison and it refers to the act of inciting revolt or violence against a lawful authority with the goal of destroying or overthrowing it

According to Merriam-Webster, "insurrection" is the "act of revolting against civil authority or an established government." Other definitions, like that of the Cambridge Dictionary, specify the act is usually a violent one. Synonyms include "revolt" or "uprising," according to Merriam-Webster.

The DC protest was not an act of rebellion or war. Trespass they may have been guilty of but so would most of the of the people who attended protests the last couple of years. The antifa azzwipes who captured and held part of Portland should have been tried for sedition and/or insurrection but weren't. Why not? And why the apparent double standard?

Wrong!

The attack on the Capitol was intended to stop the lawful certification of the Presidency. It was intended to undermine Democracy. It was both sedition and an insurrection.

And you know all of this because...? More importantly what evidence do you think can be presented in court to prove beyond a reasonable doubt those charges? Americans have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers. At least for the moment. We would like to retain that right which is why they were there.

The evidence to support sedition as well as insurrection has been broadcast on TV. That is prima facie evidence which has no defense. Maybe you need to read very closely the US Code, the elements for both the former (sedition) and the latter (insurrection); in some cases, treason, which may be more difficult to prove, but is not to be ignored.

I've seen TV and have seen no evidence of what you claim. You are begging the question which probably indicates that you have simply jumped to an unprovable conclusion. Care to try again? Or is this an admission you have no clue what you're talking about?

What you have seen on TV was a riot by a mob. Period, end of debate.

So? Did you think the left had some kind of monopoly on riot by mob? The left has been seriously into it for almost 60 years now and maybe the worm has turned. Maybe it's time for the right to get in on all the fun and games. Maybe it's time for the left to (literally) pass the torch and watch the right burn buildings and vehicles and loot stores for awhile. Maybe it's time to step aside and learn what real violence looks like. I'm afraid you won't like it much but thank you so much for putting the cops in check and turning so many local and State leaders into timid permissive pussies.
Oh-in case you missed it-riot by mob is not treason or insurrection or rebellion. You guys have turned into an American tradition. Thanks again.

It's obvious that the intention of this mob was to stop the counting of the electoral votes - to undermine Democracy. That's violent insurrection.

Sorry, you don't get to decide what is or is not "obvious" in any kind of legal sense. Maybe they were there to protest an illegal act like election fraud. Don't assume; prove or STFU.

 

[Agit8r]

Whisky Rebels didn't try to overthrow the government

The other examples are less relevant

NEXT!

The "whiskey rebels" were in armed rebellion against the Federal government's imposition of a new whiskey tax. Just like the tea tax and attempted gun control sparked the American revolution. Read.

It was an important chapter in early history. They never laid an armed seige of the legislature though. It isn't comparable.

The protestors in DC didn't either. The earlier American revolutionaries didn't lay siege to the King or his British Government either. You list an imaginary definition for "rebellion" that didn't apply even had it been correct. They also didn't assault Pope John the Irrelevant. So what?

Climbing walls, breaking doors and windows to gain access is in fact within the linguistic definition of laying seige.

If you are asking for a legal definition for what trump did through his Trump Army, it is LEVYING WAR

 

[Circe]

It's obvious that the intention of this mob was to stop the counting of the electoral votes - to undermine Democracy. That's violent insurrection.

Not very violent: good thread for comparing rebellions and riots of the past. Still, I agree, even though the violence was mild compared with most of these historical examples. Did anyone think of "Kansas, Bleeding Kansas"?

This was rebellion or insurrection. I think we probably need that at this time, with all the leftwing craziness and oppression going on, and there is no use pretending it was a "normal" black-type city riot. People came from states all over --- I heard them being interviewed.

 

[Circe]

Climbing walls, breaking doors and windows to gain access is in fact within the linguistic definition of laying seige.

No, it isn't. That's what the besieging force does when they finally find a way into the besieged city, they break doors, climb walls, etc. But beforehand, they "lay siege" outside the walls for days and weeks and months, trying to starve out the inhabitants so they'll surrender, preferably. Gaza is probably the only besieged city at this time.

It only took a few minutes for the climbers and advance guard of the crowd to get in, so that's no siege. The word siege implies they had trouble getting in: but they sure didn't!

 

[Rye Catcher]

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Sedition is a serious felony punishable by fines and up to 20 years in prison and it refers to the act of inciting revolt or violence against a lawful authority with the goal of destroying or overthrowing it

According to Merriam-Webster, "insurrection" is the "act of revolting against civil authority or an established government." Other definitions, like that of the Cambridge Dictionary, specify the act is usually a violent one. Synonyms include "revolt" or "uprising," according to Merriam-Webster.

The DC protest was not an act of rebellion or war. Trespass they may have been guilty of but so would most of the of the people who attended protests the last couple of years. The antifa azzwipes who captured and held part of Portland should have been tried for sedition and/or insurrection but weren't. Why not? And why the apparent double standard?

Wrong!

The attack on the Capitol was intended to stop the lawful certification of the Presidency. It was intended to undermine Democracy. It was both sedition and an insurrection.

And you know all of this because...? More importantly what evidence do you think can be presented in court to prove beyond a reasonable doubt those charges? Americans have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers. At least for the moment. We would like to retain that right which is why they were there.

The evidence to support sedition as well as insurrection has been broadcast on TV. That is prima facie evidence which has no defense. Maybe you need to read very closely the US Code, the elements for both the former (sedition) and the latter (insurrection); in some cases, treason, which may be more difficult to prove, but is not to be ignored.

I've seen TV and have seen no evidence of what you claim. You are begging the question which probably indicates that you have simply jumped to an unprovable conclusion. Care to try again? Or is this an admission you have no clue what you're talking about?

You're a damn liar or so out of touch with reality you need a psychiatric intervention.

 

[bendog]

If so we are also going to have to relabel one or several doz. historical conflicts we tend to forget about.

Whiskey Rebellion, (1794), in American history, uprising that afforded the new U.S. government its first opportunity to establish federal authority by military means within state boundaries, as officials moved into western Pennsylvania to quell an uprising of settlers rebelling against the liquor tax. Alexander Hamilton, secretary of the treasury, had proposed the excise (enacted by Congress in 1791, the first national internal revenue tax) to raise money for the national debt and to assert the power of the national government. Small farmers of the backcountry distilled (and consumed) whiskey, which was easier to transport and sell than the grain that was its source. It was an informal currency, a means of livelihood, and an enlivener of a harsh existence. The distillers resisted the tax by attacking (often tarring and feathering) federal revenue officers who attempted to collect it.

Utah War AKA Mormon rebellion
In 1857–58, President James Buchanan sent U.S. forces to the Utah Territory in what became known as the Utah Expedition. The Mormons, fearful that the large U.S. military force had been sent to annihilate them and having faced persecution in other areas,[7] made preparations for defense. Though bloodshed was to be avoided, and the U.S. government also hoped that its purpose might be attained without the loss of life, both sides prepared for war. The Mormons manufactured or repaired firearms, turned scythes into bayonets, and burnished and sharpened long-unused sabres.

The confrontation between the Mormon militia, called the Nauvoo Legion, and the U.S. Army involved some destruction of property and a few brief skirmishes in what is today southwestern Wyoming, but no battles occurred between the contending military forces.

At the height of the tensions, on September 11, 1857, between 95 and 120 California-bound settlers from Arkansas, Missouri and other states, including unarmed men, women and children, were killed in remote southwestern Utah by a group of local Mormon militia.[10] They first claimed that the migrants were killed by Indians but it was proven otherwise. This event was later called the Mountain Meadows Massacre and the motives behind the incident remain unclear.[11]

The Aiken massacre took place the following month. In October 1857, Mormons arrested six Californians traveling through Utah and charged them with being spies for the U.S. Army. They were released but were later murdered and robbed of their stock and $25,000.[12][13]

Pontiac's War, also known as Pontiac's Conspiracy or Pontiac's Rebellion, was launched in 1763 by a loose confederation of American Indian tribes, primarily from the Great Lakes region, the Illinois Country, and Ohio Country who were dissatisfied with British policies in the Great Lakes region following the French and Indian War (1754–1763). Warriors from numerous tribes joined the uprising in an effort to drive British soldiers and settlers out of the region. The war is named after Odawa leader Pontiac, the most prominent of many Indian leaders in the conflict.
The war began in May 1763 when Native Americans were offended by the policies of British General Jeffery Amherst and attacked a number of British forts and settlements. Eight forts were destroyed and hundreds of colonists were killed or captured, with many more fleeing the region. Hostilities came to an end after British Army expeditions in 1764 led to peace negotiations over the next two years. The Native Americans were unable to drive away the British, but the uprising prompted the British government to modify the policies that had provoked the conflict.

TO BE CONTINUED-

The first two work. In the Whiskey Rebellion President Washington led troops to quell the rebellion and the insurrectionists accepted US taxation.

In the Utah War, Utah accepted a non-theorcacy and federal court power.

In the end, the Trumpbots will have to accept the election.