If you think you are being hammered with this fact, it's because you don't seem to grasp the truth of it. The fact of *SLAVERY* in all 13 colonies did not preclude their right to independence.
For the South, you constantly argue that they don't have the right to be independent because of slavery. I merely point out your hypocrisy in refusing to apply the same standard to the original founders.
He disses the Founding Fathers and the DOI and the Constitution.
To the contrary. I point out how the founding Fathers were slave owners, but they were a product of their time. It is no disrespect to them to speak the truth. You just keep trying to apply modern sensibilities to a different era. The Declaration I have done nothing but revere. I constantly cite it as the mother of all subsequent authority in this nation, because it is *THE* document that created the nation. It was the expression of Natural Law, and is therefore the highest authority.
As for the Constitution, I merely point out that it deliberately imprinted slavery into the legal foundation of the nation, and you people are hypocritical to pretend it didn't.
And as the Master of False Equivalencies he strips George III of his crown and reduces his Kingdom to a mere Union.
Are you arguing that the Union of the Crowns Monarchy is of a higher social status than is our Union of States? I disagree. You simply don't like me pointing out that Britain was in fact a Union, because it interferes with your efforts to ignore the fact that the parallels between the founders and the confederates are all too uncomfortable to you.
You daren't say the slave owning founders were in the wrong, so you have to work hard at splitting hairs to make distinctions between them and the confederates.
Now he is equating colonial Canada to the original thirteen colonies.
That is simply an incorrect statement. I am pointing out that the British settlements in Canada had to live under the exact same edicts as the British settlements in America, yet the Canadian Brits remained loyal to the King, while the American Brits declared the conditions intolerable.
The point being, if the conditions imposed by the British were so horrible, how did the Canadian Brits shrug them off? One would think that if the conditions were so bad, the Canadian Brits would have joined us in revolting against the Crown. They didn't. Ergo, there was a differences in opinion between equal sufferers of British rule in North America. Indeed, the loyalists in America almost numbered equally to the rebels for much of this era.
And the simply massive amounts of money the North was ripping off the South (and the South didn’t even know it!)
The South knew it very well. "Rockr" simply isn't interested in presenting reasons for secession such as these. The South knew very well that the North was ripping them off. That's why they had no interest in remaining in the Union. They would have seen an instant 40% increase in their profits by cutting out the Northern Shipping and Handling.
It would have been even more. With the Europeans seeing vastly increased profits from the greatly reduced tariffs, virtually the entire trans Atlantic trade would have moved to the South. Trade and profits would have increased exponentially, and the newly capitalized Southern industries would have taken over manufacturing and shipping from the industries in the North.
Through the Mississippi river they would have supplied the needs of all the Midwestern states, and over time, the Midwestern states would have came under the political control of the South as well.
Instead of me bitching about the Robber Barons of New York and their elite influence, I would be bitching about those Robber Barons of Charleston and their elite influence.
By the way, Sumter was about the flag flying over it. Davis, to his folly, fired on that flag.