Replies

The founding fathers had no illusions that they wouldn't all hang for treason had they not won their war. It's the nature of revolution that it overthrows the old order and begins a new one. By winning their war, their break became legitimate in the strict sense of the word.

Once again, you have identified "might makes right" as the salient principle involved. Moral authority comes from the barrel of a gun.

In truth, England decided to stop fighting. Had they been possessed of a maniacal obsession such as governed the Union forces, there would be no United States, and you would not now be lecturing me how the Colonies were right because they won.

Objectivity and Intellectual honesty appear to be very rare nowadays, especially in this sort of discussion.

The south failed to win their rebellion (that's okay, it happens all the time)

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.

but instead of reacting with the usual actions seen worldwide throughout history after such an uprising, the United States showed remarkable mercy.

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? Might have blurred the narrative about "We did this for freedom" or something.

All I hear from you is "Rah Rah" for your side. You are simply a cheerleader, not someone trying to be objective. The Union side is right BECAUSE it's your side, not because you have an objective or even consistent standard.

You talk about "worldwide throughout history" but you show little sign of having such a broad comprehension of human History.

Once again, you have identified "might makes right" as the salient principle involved. Moral authority comes from the barrel of a gun.

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.