Posted on 06/24/2012 5:54:41 PM PDT by Borges
Some interesting choices with a Number 2 that I never heard of.
(Excerpt) Read more at mandatory.com ...
You’re still avoiding an answer to my question.
George Washington was a British subject. He took up arms and led an army against King George. Was he a traitor?
“You were contending that an agreement existed about federal versus state citizenship — that one was a citizen of a state, rather than a citizen of the country.”
That’s not what I was contending. He was a traitor, if, and only if, one believes that the Union was the same as the United States. If they are not - then he no more took up arms against his own country than he defended it.
BS The difference is secession for a cause such as the founders declared independence for, taxation without representation, or the perpetuation of slavery that the south seceded over. The federal government has been out of control since FDR. Secession should be looked at.
By the way, FDR never lost a southern state, so don't get any ideas that the south is not immune to overreach by the feds. The 1861 attempted secession was an abomination to freedom, we should look to 1776 as our inspiration.
“The Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White (1869)” that unilateral succession is illegal and that the southern states never legally succeeded.
And 1869 is not 1861. Post facto law cannot charge Lee for a decision he made 8 years prior to the law.
There's a style, and some conflict.
“That’s not what I was contending. He was a traitor, if, and only if, one believes that the Union was the same as the United States”
How exactly was the union different from the United States?
Wasn’t trumandogz zotted a few months back? Same kind of hate came from him for Southerners too... :p
I"m not an expert in British military law, but the Brits didn't worry about what something might be called when they set out to kill you.
Back in England Parliament was split between a PRO AMERICA faction and a PRO BRITAIN faction ~ they were not about to hang each other ~ although the Crown would have if they'd had the chance.
There were several other wars taking place within the broader framework of the Revolution. For instance France and England continued some of their old disputes ~ which meant the French Navy helped the US with a blockade and the French Army actually landed troops. Spain had its own grievances against England and their forces in America were deployed to aid the American side ~ to the extent possible. We respected the Mississippi as their boundary in respect for their being our allies. French "bittereinders" in the Green River Valley (Western Kentucky) and along the Wabash resumed their part of the earlier war (we call the French and Indian War). French Acadians had their own set of grievances and began settling them.
Scandinavian settlements had their own grievance against Britain that had to do with their long term alliance with the Swedish ruling clique.
Then there was the civil war in South Carolina. Throughout the war the Brits continued to send highlanders to that colony to fight highlanders already there. Some ancient clanwars were rekindled.
It was far from clear that Great Britain had ever been anything other than a distant colonial power as far as most Americans were concerned. Even George Washington had years before gotten into raising his own hybrid wheat to cut him free from English flour supplies ~
Sorry, but that has to hold some sort of record for sheer empty-headed reasoning.
The Treaty of Paris of 3 September 1783 is more than 7 years after the colonies announced their secession from Britain, and it has no bearing on what King George thought about it in 1776.
I’m sure that even you are capable of understanding that King George disagreed with American secession, to the point of waging a major war to prevent it from happening.
So try again to sell the idea that secession from the British Empire was a ‘right’ acknowledged by London, not that you’ll be able to come up with something better than that last gem.
Sophistry. "The union" has to be more than one part. "The United States" has to be more than just one state or a collection of localities in rebellion against the rest of the country. Take up arms for one component against the rest of the country and you've taken up arms against your country. That's not so hard to understand.
I think if you delved a little deeper into the history of the civil war, you’d find out some interesting things.
I wouldn’t even consider the southerns rebels, as a matter of fact, given the nature of their beliefs, I would say they are more in line with being Americans and belief in the constitution then the other way around with the north at the time. The north wanted to spread it’s influence, wanted things done their way, centralize government. Long list of other things, but bread and butter of it was, it was a war against tyranny from the north.
You should be a politician, muawiyah. You reply with a lengthy response that avoids answering my direct question.
Albeit your posts are always more interesting than the boiler plate that politicians spout when they are similarly avoiding a question that they don’t want to answer.
George Washington was a British subject. He was waging war against the government that claimed him as a subject. Was he a traitor?
Let me put it this way. I’m 61. It won’t happen in my lifetime.
Jeff Davis, President CSA
The Midwest provided entirely too many troops to the Union cause and New York too few for your idea to be sound.
BTW, Indiana and Ohio were filled to the brim with Southern abolitionists driven North by their pro-slavery friends, relatives and neighbors down home.
Ask the Brits. They had a long history of playing kissy face after their various civil wars ~ so that would depend on the circumstances.
Why would there be any doubt in your mind? Of course it was LBJ and J Edgar Hoover. Even a complete idiot can figure only those two could have pulled off the crime of the century.
Are you really going to defend the man who led their enemy?
258,000 Condfederate soldiers (including 2 of my ancestors) also died in the war. I could say the same about Grant, and that slimey bastard Sherman.
The biggest traitor by far is Hussein Obama. Why is he not at the TOP OF THE LIST?
George Washington is a hero to us and a traitor to the British. It is a matter of opinion.
IMHO he had every right to rebel.
The British tried to pay off the massive debt they accumulated during the Seven Years War by taxing the American colonies.
First there was the Sugar Act in 1764.
Then there was the Stamp Act in 1765.
Then there was the Tea Act in 1773.
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.