Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: DiogenesLamp
Why was it silly?

The separation from the British monarchy was the creation of a form of self-government "conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

In 1863, that form of government, the only one in the world, was threatened with "perish[ing] from the earth" by the unilateral secession of the Confederate states. The preservation of "government of the people, by the people, for the people," was the issue. That meant the preservation of the Constitution and the compact it represented.

The political bonds in the two situations were by no means similar.

74 posted on 11/21/2018 5:42:37 AM PST by T Ruth (Mohammedanism shall be destroyed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]


To: T Ruth
Why was it silly?

The separation from the British monarchy was the creation of a form of self-government "conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

Except no one at the time interpreted that statement to mean that slaves should be free. Not even the guy who wrote it freed his slaves. To claim it meant that the founders intended for slaves to be free is just dishonest.

The focus of 1776 was independence from the United Kingdom, but Lincoln bent the meaning of the Declaration of Independence to pretend it was about freedom for slaves. Very dishonest.

The political bonds in the two situations were by no means similar.

How were they at all different? All 13 colonies were slave states in 1776. Every single one of them. The United Kingdom was a Union of Kingdoms, formed by Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England.

The British offered freedom to any slave that would join them in suppressing the rebellion, and the declaration even noted that the British were attempting to foment slave rebellions.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

These "domestic insurrections" are a fancy way of saying "slave rebellions."

The Colonies formed a "Confederacy", and their armies were led by a slave holding General from Virginia.

How is it not similar? In fact, how is it not exactly the same?

76 posted on 11/21/2018 7:33:29 AM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson