Posted on 07/30/2013 7:15:08 AM PDT by NotYourAverageDhimmi
You're confusing morality (which is often subjective--see slave ownership for example) with legality.
They put up a bigger fight than the colonies ever did against England, but King George III was more Reasonable than was Lincoln. He stopped the bloodshed and let those Rebellious states go.
Britain didn't end the war because King George reasonably saw that the colonies were morally right. He ended it because his armies had been defeated, the French were now involved on the American side, and he lost control of parliament and with it the political means to continue fighting.
Really? , and what would they have done had they NOT restrained themselves as you seem to think they did? Should they have killed everyone they conquered?
I'm not saying that the United States should have done anything differently. But you might want to remember Benjamin Franklin said about what would have happened to them if your "reasonable" King George had won. "We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." He knew what was at stake.
Question: Can you, tomorrow, announce that your house is now a separate country, no longer bound to the United States?
So you support Spain’s claim to Gibraltar?
You did a great job with the race klowns
Nice
You’ll have to give them last word....doesn’t look like any of them work
Academia or SPLC
Something like that
Except it doesn’t.
The matter of the building of Ft. Sumter is public record.
Lincoln didn’t start a war to further, extend, and protect the evil that was slavery.
Lincoln didn’t unconstitutionally interfere with state internal policies absent an insurrection.
The insurrection was unconstitutional, and was begun to further and extend the evil that was slavery. Sorry that you think evil is really complex. It really is very simple.
Your logic that SC had to take over Ft Sumter because it was next to SC is like the man who only wanted a small farm and all the land next to it.
Of course a foreign entity will be next to your country. To demand otherwise is to follow the logic of the Japanese during and before WWII: They needed Korea to secure their home islands, they needed Manchuria to secure Korea, they needed the rest of China to secure Manchuria, they needed Indochina to secure China, they needed Dutch East Indies to secure Indochina, and they needed the Philippines to secure Dutch East Indies....
They said they were going to war for Slavery. Perhaps your argument is with Jeff Davis and Alexander Stephens.
Okay, I'll go.
Yes.
Now, here's a question for you: The constitution mentions rebellion several times, allowing for suspension of habeas corpus, abridging the right of participants in rebellion from office, and authorizing payment of "pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion." Now, what is the difference between what the southern states did and what the framers imagined as rebellion or insurrection when those clauses were written?
“And yet we,re all decidedly more conservative than you.”
Only anew York liberal would think that. You guys are freaking delusional as are all liberals.
“I’m all but certain 0.E.O is Non-Sequitur “
Rockrr is.
“insurrectionists of 1861.”
According to you the North fought the war to free the slaves, illegally waging war against the southern States, instead of passing a Constitutional amendment and changing the law. The northern States were the insurrectionists.
The cause for war differed depending on who was fighting.
The southern fighting man was conscripted, and fought to keep faith with other men, and to avoid punishment. Lee published orders directing that those who didn’t attack with sufficient celerity be shot. That was intended to provide additional motivation. Pickett was famous for kidnapping NC men in the US Army and shooting them. Jackson was famous for shooting stragglers, but his biographers say things like “ ... a great marcher of men”.
We know the motivation of Jeff Davis and Alexander Stephens, pretended Pres and vice pres of the pretended confederacy. They began the war to protect and extend slavery. We know that because they said so. They said that they thought slavery was a good thing.
We know that Lincoln responded to the southern war to protect the US constitution which created and established a Union between the various states. Though he thought slavery was a bad thing, he had no authority to ban slavery absent the insurrection, and supported the amendment to the constitution that eventually ended slavery in the states not in insurrection.
Lee is an interesting case. Noone ever accused him of rape, torture, or kidnapping after slavery had been ended. Noone ever accused him of having people shot without legal authority after the insurrection was at an end.
He did go to court three times in an attempt to prevent or delay the freedom granted to his father in law’s slaves. He appears to have bought kidnappped people for use as slaves. He appears to have supported torture when used against slaves. He appears to have ordered shooting of soldiers who were not sufficiently forward in battle. Many of his slaves at Arlington were mostly white, and his slave ledgers, still kept secret by the family, probably reveal his practice of raping female slaves, and selling his daughters to brothels.
Lee’s experience shows why the insurrection and the slavery that he and it supported were evil. Absent those pretended legal justifications of evil, Lee was a good man.
“The south failed to win their rebellion “
What rebellion? The southern States were being attacked by the northern States to end slavery. Instead of the northern States changing the law through a Constitutional amendment they simply attacked South Carolina as a first act of war against the southern States. Every one of your bigots claim the south could not succeed and therefore did not, there fore the southern States were part of the union that the northern States attacked to end slavery.
Throwing a molotov cocktail through someone's picture window might be a pretty good way to make people leave a house, too.
Except that these weren't the police, they were more akin to squatters who stubbornly insisted on remaining on land where they were not welcome.
Ft. Sumter was a United States fort, built with federal money, on land deeded to the federal government by South Carolina. Secession, even if legal (which it wasn't) doesn't magically transfer property rights. And isn't property rights what this was all about?
They had already given up Fort Moultrie, so the principle that they would evacuate was already established.
Sort of like saying that since you've already stolen one part of my property by making me fear for my safety, I might as well just hand over the rest, the principle being established and all. And just to help me think faster, you'll set my place on fire.
“insurrection was unconstitutional”
Yet the northern States committed insurrection by waging a war to end slavery instead of changing the Constitution.
The southern States were attacked by the northern States to end slavery according to you. Instead of the northern States changing the law through a Constitutional amendment they simply attacked South Carolina as a first act of war against the southern States. Every one of your bigots claim the south could not succeed and therefore did not, there fore the southern States were part of the union that the northern States attacked to end slavery.
Another poster got it right. Finally put my finger on it:
The northern States committed insurrection by waging a war to end slavery instead of changing the Constitution.
The southern States were attacked by the northern States to end slavery according to you. Instead of the northern States changing the law through a Constitutional amendment they simply attacked South Carolina as a first act of war against the southern States. Every one of your bigots claim the south could not succeed and therefore did not, there fore the southern States were part of the union that the northern States attacked to end slavery.
“according to you”
Sorry, NOT according to you, wardaddy. That comment was for someone else.
The Southern Rebellion. 1861 to 1865. It was in all the papers.
The southern States were being attacked by the northern States...
That's like saying Japan was being attacked by the U.S. in 1944.
Every one of your bigots claim the south could not succeed...
When it comes to their rebellion I think is was the South who proved they could not succeed.
The rebelion in which a number of southern states announced that they were no longer subject to the Constitution, seized federal facilities and raised an army to protect a large area of the United States that they now claimed was in fact a different country. Maybe you've heard about it. It was in all the papers.
The fact that you act all shocked that someone might have objected to this is simply laughable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.