Posted on 07/30/2013 7:15:08 AM PDT by NotYourAverageDhimmi
I never claimed that. Lay off the LSD toad.
That was all in response to the north preparing to wage war against the south. The south was protecting themselves form the war of northern aggression, as you liberal south hating bigots clearly point out the north was waging.
The odd thing was, before the D of I, the armed resistance was an attempt to get the Crown to play by the rules of law.
The colonies had taxing power. England’s Parliament attempted to pass taxes on the colonies, and those taxes were resisted, and eventually repealed because of that resistance.
They sought to get around the resistance by a tax on tea, having the tax paid in England, and the tea sold in the colonies. Most ports (Philadeplhia, NY) refused to unload the tea. Charleston unloaded it, but noone would buy it, and the tea rotted in a warehouse. In Boston the tea was going to be unloaded using the british soldiers, so prior to that it was dumped in the harbor by persons unknown.
In response to that, Parliament ordered that the Port of Boston be closed until the value of the tea was repaid. British common law required that warrants be sworn, persons be indicted, and trials be held. Parliament didn’t want to do that because the persons who dumped the tea were unknown, the trials would result in people being found not guilty. Suspected ringleaders left Boston to avoid capture and trial.
The closure of Boston as a port was an illegal collective punishment by Parliament and the Crown. Rather than closing the port to punish/starve people who had done nothing wrong common law required criminal acts be punished only after a trial.
The other colonies shipped food to Boston over land, so people wouldn’t starve. In response to that the British set up illegal checkpoints to prevent food from entering Boston, or where food could be illegally stolen by the British soldiers. In response to that, people left Boston. In response to people leaving Boston, British soldiers went on a patrol to attempt to illegaly steal weapons owned by the Colony, ammunition owned by the Colony, and capture persons suspected of being enthsiastic about the ‘tea party’.
In response to a military patrol sent out to steal, the local people organized as a milita resisted at Lexington and Concord. That military patrol was rather shot up by the time it returned to Boston, without the cannon, powder and shot they had attempted to steal.
In 1860 there were no such illegal actions by the US government before the start of the insurrection.
You’re just a typical liberal liar and you have claimed that often. Go read your posts. You claim the north waged war to free the slaves, so you freely admit the north was waging an illegal war against the law and against the constitution instead of using the law to change the Constitution. You have claimed over and over that the north waged war to free the slaves. So screw you. Your own words betray your liberal bigotry.
LSD? You liberals always seem to turn to sex and drugs as arguments and insults.
I am Spartacus!
I never made that claim you moron.
The North made war as necessary to suppresss an insurrection, and in the course of that war the slaves were freed in the areas in insurrection.
The south began an insurrection, and war, and in the course of losing that war, and the failure of that insurrection, the slaves were freed in the areas in insurrection. Areas not in insurrection had their slaves freed either by state action (NY, NJ, MA) or by the 13th Amemdment.
And by the way, Lincoln supported the 13th Amendment, but the President has no actual authority in the passing of amendments.
On what basis do you claim that the north was preparing to wage war on the south? Jefferson Davis’ call for troops preceded Lincoln’s by over a month.
“On what basis do you claim that the north was preparing to wage war on the south? Jefferson Davis’ call for troops preceded Lincoln’s by over a month.”
You don’t know jack about history if that’s all you’ve got. Of course, all you’ve got is public school liberal bigotry.
The north waged an illegal war against the south to stop something they should have gone through the proper law to stop. You liberal bigots claim the south had no right to try to secede because nothing in the Constitution allowed for it, yet, you liberal bigots support the northern States not using that same Constitution to make a constitutional amendment to end slavery, instead, choosing to attack the southern States.
In other words, just another lost causer.
“The North made war as necessary to suppresss an insurrection”
What insurrection? The South had not attacked anyone when the North was sending war ships into the Charleston harbor and fortifying Ft Sumter in preparation for war.
You don’t wait until the bully actually lands a blow on your jaw before striking first. We’re not as stupid as you are to believe such a bullshit story as the northern States were just innocent victims of a rebellious southern States.
The fortification of Ft Sumter took place long before 1860.
The single ship fired on by the insurrection was unarmed, bearing provisions.
The insurrection was declared by the President, while Congress was not in session, per the 1795 Militia Act.
George Zimmerman is a free man because he did wait until the bully landed a punch on him.
The south started the war because they did fire on the fort, even after the provision ship had been turned back.
And yet the United States waited until the rebels had fired on Ft. Sumter before calling up troops.
“And yet the United States waited until the rebels had fired on Ft. Sumter before calling up troops. “
Logic really escapes you, doesn’t it. Must be frustrating.
Your conclusion is that the US had no troops until that callout. Idiot.
Except King George didn't issue a Declaration of Independence asserting that you have a natural right to expatriate yourself. Indeed, King George's position was that expatriation is completely illegal and unnatural. It is the good ole US of A that proclaimed to the world that it is a natural right for people to separate themselves from unwanted governance.
We founded the country on collective expatriation, and then we rebuked the principle thereafter.
The only ones rebuking anything were the insurrectionists who made war on their own country. It wasn’t that the rebels tried to expatriate themselves, it was the belligerence with which they attempted it.
Do you always make these leaps of illogic?
The trouble with you is that you don't read your own stuff. Try reading it. It comes across as emotional and hysterical.
"Another decent thread that the Lost Cause Losers have waddled in and crapped all over..."
Yeah, that's the height of reason and objectivity.
In other words you project your own emotion-based “arguments” onto others and then preemptively dismiss any response from them as unworthy or regard.
I'm getting the notion that dismissing histrionic types is a pretty good idea.
Again, issued 15 months after the Colonists had started their revolution. They didn't pretend their actions were legal so how can you compare them with the South in 1860?
Indeed, King George's position was that expatriation is completely illegal and unnatural.
I believe that King George's position was armed rebellion against the Crown was completely illegal. And I don't think the Founding Fathers disagreed with him.
It is the good ole US of A that proclaimed to the world that it is a natural right for people to separate themselves from unwanted governance.
And in order to do that they fought and won a war of independence. The Confederacy accomplished 50% of that.
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.