So your point is that the right to independence can only be exercised if DoodleDawg finds it's motivation worthy prior to the fact.
Well hurt pride may have been the Southern motivation for starting the war but the Union recognized the attack on Sumter as the act of war it was intended to be.
That's why they were expecting the first battle of Mananas; Because they knew the Union would respond to being expelled off South Carolina property by sending a 30,000 man invasion force.
Oh wait. They weren't at all prepared for that Union invasion. Apparently they weren't intending on having a war after all. Further proof is the fact that they didn't invade Washington right after moping up the Only Army which could have stopped them.
Almost a pity I think. Had they simply invaded Washington D.C., it's possible that much further bloodshed would have been prevented. Odd behavior from people who supposedly wanted a war. Anyone who was ready for a war would have jumped at the chance to behead the opposition government.
Kind of an "emancipation proclamation" kind of thing? You all didn't appreciate it four score and six years later.
More like "any tactic that helps us win, and d@mn the principles involved!"
If you say so.
And thus do you gloss over an unpleasant truth. No, it's not because I say so, it's because that is what the objective truth is. The Declaration of Independence freed no slaves, ergo it was not meant to.
And yet it wasn't until a president from a party so overtly anti-slavery was elected that the South decided to rebel. Tariffs, trade, all the other excuses you can name didn't cause it. But electing Lincoln did. Go figure.
I'm pretty sure they figured he would Obama them to death with executive orders and refusing to enforce existing laws, usage of federal employees for attacking and prosecuting them, and so on.
I think that was a very reasonable conjecture given his rhetoric on the campaign trail.
Amazing how the crown didn't see it that way.
The Crown wasn't arguing Natural Law, they were arguing "Divine right of Kings, " and "Perpetual Allegiance to the Crown".
The British argument isn't appropriate for people asserting natural law for their own independence but denying it when people wish to be independent of them. It is in fact, extremely Hypocritical.
Yep. Still a mystery.
Only if you are obtuse. The United States asserted natural law as justification for it's Independence. It denies natural law when others wish to be independent of it. It is hypocritical because it does not adhere to it's own claimed standard.
This is getting us nowhere. After dozens of posts that are getting less and less plesant as time goes by I've decided to leave you be and let you pontificate to other people.
I would find arguing your position very unpleasant as well. I would not want to have my fig leaf stripped from me and then attempt to justify horrible carnage and riven principles without it.
But the fact remains, the damage to the concept of independence caused by that war is still with us today.
That war birthed the Fedzilla, and it's abuses only grew stronger from that period onward. What we face nowadays with an out of Control Fedzilla is the consequence of letting that monster grab so much power in the first place.
This is where the problem began;the committee on style changed it from the above to just we the people. This inferred that the people, not the States, formed the US. Since the States were acceded into the Union, then the reverse would be allowed too. The people inferred that we were a Federalist nation, not a Nation of States. The correct interpretation is that we were a country of States and this is explained in the Federalist Papers.