150 years on, Sherman's March to Sea still vivid

But at least the colonialists were honest enough to admit that they were rebelling against the authority of the crown.

Sherman Logan: "Sorry, getting tired of the discussion.
I respect your POV, which is at least a new take, but disagree."

But you can't disagree with the facts...
FRiends, everybody here knows of Samuel Adams & James Otis, right?, Adams: famous maltster, second cousin to President John Adams, with Otis "Sons of Liberty", early leaders of what became the American Revolution movement:

Do you also know of Robert Barnwell Rhett and others, like Louis Wigfall, William Yancey, William Porcher Miles, James DeBow & Mississippi Governor John J. Pettus -- they were the Southern Fire-Eaters who hatched the plot in 1858 to split the majority-Democrat party into two minority parties, South & North, the split which engineered election of minority Republican President Abraham Lincoln.

My point here: there's a difference between colonial patriots like Saumuel Adams in, say, 1764 and Southern Fire-Eater secessionists in, say 1850.

Patriots in the 1770s began as loyalists, simply insisting on "constitutional rights" as Englishmen, especially including "no taxation without representation":

"In the course of the 1760s and 1770s, William Pitt the Elder, Sir William Pulteney, and George Grenville, amongst other prominent Britons and colonial Americans, such as Joseph Galloway, James Otis, Jr., Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, the London Quaker Thomas Crowley, Royal Governors such as Thomas Pownall M.P., William Franklin, Sir Francis Bernard, and the Attorney-General of Quebec, Francis Maseres, debated and circulated plans for the creation of colonial seats in London, imperial union with Great Britain, or a federally representative British Parliament with powers of taxation that was to consist of American, West Indian, Irish and British Members of Parliament.[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]"

These men only became revolutionaries when all such proposals were utterly rejected, and the opposite imposed: illegitimate, dictatorial military government, certainly from colonists' perspectives.

By sharp contrast, Southern Fire-Eaters began in the 1850s working for dis-union, hatching a plot in 1858 to split their own majority Democrat party in half (north & south), engineering the 1860 election of minority Republican Abraham Lincoln.
In 1860 Fire-Eaters already had stronger representation in Congress than their white populations supported, had as President a Northern Dough-faced Democrat, James Buchanan, who strongly supported the 1857 Supreme Court Dred Scott ruling.

In short, in 1860 Fire-Eaters already had everything the 1770s Sons of Liberty said they wanted.
Had the 1770s Sons of Liberty achieved representation as enjoyed by 1860s Fire Eaters, there is no way that such colonial elder statesmen as Benjamin Franklin would convert to support Revolution.

Only 1770s Brits resort to increasing military dictatorship converted men like Franklin to the Revolutionary cause.

But no such equivalent existed in November 1860, when Fire-Eaters first began to organize for secession, Confederacy and war against the United States.

So, how can you disagree with the facts?

So, how can you disagree with the facts?

No one is disagreeing with facts, we are disagreeing with the conclusions you are trying to build at the expense of facts.

Saying that the southern "fire eaters" (a deliberate denigration) had everything the Sons of Liberty wanted is to entirely miss the point. "Want" is in the eye of the beholder, and you are trying to judge people based on your modern preferences rather than from their perspective.

I have a simple position. If a body of people don't want to be part of an existing government, then they ought to have a right to leave it and form a government which suits them. I don't arrogantly attempt to define for them what reasons are proper and which are not, I simply say the whole system ought to be built on voluntary rather than coercive reasons.

If you have to invoke compulsion, then you are doing it wrong. Once again, the Declaration of Independence lays out this concept clearly.

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

All of your efforts to denigrate their reasons for wanting a new government are just noise to me. I don't care what their reasons are. A person does not have to justify their reasons as to why they no longer wish to associate with other people.

We are currently going through a period where this existing government is once again trying to force people to associate with other people with whom they do not wish to associate. "Gay Marriage" and all the lawsuits which have been created to force normal people into accepting it is a perfect example of the same concept on a smaller scale.

You need to do some soul searching and ask yourself if you want to live with a system that decides *FOR* you that your reasons for wanting to disassociate are "good enough" to suit them. They are going to tell you "No. You have to associate with Homosexuals and Muslims because we don't recognize your reasons for refusing to do so as good enough."

And that is where you are philosophically at the moment. You are siding with the coercive forces of history, rather than those who believe in voluntary association.

Again, you need to rethink your current positions and assumptions.

Sorry, getting tired of the discussion.

You and me both, brother.

Don’t disagree with the facts, just your interpretation of their meaning.

I think you give the Founders too much credit for honesty and demonize the Fire-Eaters a bit too much.

None of the Founders every seriously expected to be give representation in Parliament. Their slogan of “no taxation without representation” therefore in practice meant simply “no taxation.” An understandable desire, but not fully honest.

Had they been granted 50 seats in Parliament, something unimaginable at the time (indeed no colony ever did get such) their reps would have been vastly outvoted on all colonial issues. Taxes, probably much higher ones, would have been opposed over colonial opposition.

At that point they would have been in essentially the same position as the South in the 1850s. Or, more accurately, the position the South saw, correctly, they would soon be in. Represented but consistently outvoted. With no real hope of changing that equation.

Now I am NOT a fan of the Fire-Eaters. But they accurately foresaw that the South could not indefinitely maintain its way of life in a country increasingly dominated by people fundamentally opposed to that way of life.

Thus the Founders objected simply and somewhat disengenuously to (quite low) taxation, while the FEs saw, correctly, an existential challenge to their whole way of life. If anything, the FEs had a more justifiable reason for rebellion and secession than the Founders.

That is, they did IF you accept, which I don’t, that their way of life deserved to be perpetuated.

So, how can you disagree with the facts?

Because the facts get in the way of what we know.

Sorry, from time to time I get called away, and so the delays in my responses
Also, I never intend to post a Rorschach test, where anybody can read anything into my words they wish.
My words actually mean what they say...

Sherman Logan: "I think you give the Founders too much credit for honesty and demonize the Fire-Eaters a bit too much."

Please re-read my post, you'll see there's no "demonizing" of Fire-Eaters at all, simply factual reporting that those people, unlike our Founders, began with the idea of dis-union, and then plotted to achieve it, by turning their majority Democrat party into two small minority parties, north & south.
This elected minority Republicans, and gave the Deep South all the excuse it wanted to declare secession.
So that's not "demonizing", just the facts, sir.

Sherman Logan: "None of the Founders every seriously expected to be give representation in Parliament.
Their slogan of “no taxation without representation” therefore in practice meant simply “no taxation.”
An understandable desire, but not fully honest."

In fact, as I quoted, history shows the idea was seriously proposed & discussed in the 1760s & '70s, by "William Pitt the Elder, Sir William Pulteney, and George Grenville, amongst other prominent Britons...".

Throughout this period, Pennsylvania appointed Benjamin Franklin in England to represent the colony's cause, and negotiate for better terms.
It was only in 1776, after Franklin concluded no better terms than war & oppression were to be obtained from Brits, that he returned in support of Revolution.

Sherman Logan: "Had they been granted 50 seats in Parliament, something unimaginable at the time (indeed no colony ever did get such) their reps would have been vastly outvoted on all colonial issues.
Taxes, probably much higher ones, would have been opposed over colonial opposition."

Don't know where your number, "50 seats in Parliament" comes from but note that today's total is 1,495 members in both houses, so 50 seats represents maybe 3% of the total.
However, in today's House of Commons, the majority coalition of Conservatives & Liberal Democrats enjoys a majority of just 103 seats, and historically, majorities have often been much less.
So a block of 50 seats would not necessarily always be insignificant -- if they were "swing seats" they could be quite influential indeed.

Further, your unfounded accusations of bad-faith, dishonesty and cynicism against our Founders are way out-of-line, FRiend.
Unless you have serious data to support such cynicism, I'd suggest taking Founders at their words, remembering that the Massachusetts Charter of 1691 did provide significant self-government and elected representation within Massachusetts.
So our Founders all had well-founded beliefs in the "constitutional rights" of Englishmen, and just wanted themselves included.

Indeed, we should remember: Franklin's defense of the colonies before Parliament in 1767, emphasized that colonies had already paid a large share of French & Indian war-costs by providing 25,000 troops (as many as Britain itself sent) and appropriating millions from colonial treasuries for the war.
So there was no hint of disloyalty to Britain here, only the entirely appropriate request for fair treatment.

Yes, by 1773, even Franklin's loyalty was beginning to strain, and so we have his remarkable document: Rules By Which A Great Empire May Be Reduced To A Small One spelling out details of British mis-rule in her American colonies.
Some of these items will reappear in another document by Franklin, published July 4, 1776.

Sherman Logan: "At that point they would have been in essentially the same position as the South in the 1850s.
Or, more accurately, the position the South saw, correctly, they would soon be in.
Represented but consistently outvoted.
With no real hope of changing that equation."

Parliament today has three major parties and at least ten minor parties, so a block of 50 votes, if that's the number, would be highly significant in helping other parties form majority coalitions.

Likewise in the US by constitutional formula, Southern white votes were always overrepresented in Congress and electoral college, giving them eight of the first 15 Presidents, three more Dough-faced Northern Democrats, plus a large majority in the Supreme Court.
That such political dominance was destined to recede anybody might foresee, but that this must necessarily prove disastrous for "Southern interests" is not an inevitable "given".

It only became a "given" because Fire-Eaters decided to split apart their majority Democrat party, thus engineering election of minority Republican President Abraham Lincoln.

Sherman Logan: "Thus the Founders objected simply and somewhat disengenuously to (quite low) taxation, while the FEs saw, correctly, an existential challenge to their whole way of life.
If anything, the FEs had a more justifiable reason for rebellion and secession than the Founders."

Now that is a major mouth-full!
The truth of this matter is that Fire-Eaters had no objective reason to declare secession -- none -- and our FRiend DiogenesLamp admits as much when he claims (incorrectly) that they never needed a real reason, that secession "at pleasure" was their right & duty, if/when they saw fit.

By sharp contrast, on July 4, 1776 war by Brits on the colonists was already over two years old, much death and destruction had already taken place, and our Founders had a long list of grievances already committed by the Brits against them.
So for you to claim otherwise flies in the face of facts and reason.

Even your argument that slavery was objectively doomed in 1860 is unfounded -- certainly not "doomed" by Republicans, who had no problem with slavery in the South, simply did not want it exported (via Dred Scott) to the western territories, or their own northern states.
Yes, we agree that slavery had to constantly expand or eventually perish, but there were no tell-tale signs of "perishing" -- none -- in 1860.

So the issue in 1860 was what might happen sometime in the future, while in 1776 oppression was already happening, for the past two years and more.

That's why, legally, Fire-Eaters had no "standing" to complain against the Union, while our Founders' actual suffering gave them all the "standing" necessary for their Declaration.

DiogenesLamp post #343: "Saying that the southern "fire eaters" (a deliberate denigration) had everything the Sons of Liberty wanted is to entirely miss the point.
"Want" is in the eye of the beholder, and you are trying to judge people based on your modern preferences rather than from their perspective.
I have a simple position.
If a body of people don't want to be part of an existing government, then they ought to have a right to leave it and form a government which suits them."

A contractual obligation, such as the US Constitution, necessitates respect for the institutions & procedures established.
Your beloved Fire-Eaters disrespected the Constitution by:

Unilaterally declaring secession "at pleasure" -- meaning without mutual consent or, in Madison's words: "usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect".
Provoking war with the United States by unlawful seizures of dozens of Federal properties, threatening and firing on Federal officials.
Starting war with the United States by demanding surrender of Federal troops in Fort Sumter, then forcing it through military assault, the process of which killed some.
Sending military aid to support Confederate forces in Union states, clearly meeting the Constitution's definition of "treason".
Formally declaring war on the United States, May 6, 1861, all of these before a single Confederate soldier was killed in battle with any Union force, and before any Union Army invaded a single Confederate state.

These actions, singularly and combined, rendered moot & irrelevant any debate over possibly legitimate methods to secede from our Constitution's compact.

Benjamin Franklin before the Privy Council, 1774:

You seem to have an odd idea the Founders were faultless demi-gods. They were in fact fallible men. Some, notably T. Jefferson, could be remarkably sneaky and back-stabbing.

They were perhaps the most admirable group of men that has ever lived, but they were men. I have no problem recognizing that they did not always behave with sterling probity. No group of men ever has.

In your loonng response I noted you left out the rather salient part of my comparison of the Founders to the Fire-Eaters. That is the purpose of their rebellion. The Founders’ rebelled to expand liberty, the Fire-Eaters to prevent its expansion.

All other comparison points pale in comparison. Which is why the Founders were morally (not legally, as you seem important to stress) justified in their rebellion. The Fire-Eaters were neither legally nor morally justified.

Sherman Logan: "You seem to have an odd idea the Founders were faultless demi-gods.
They were in fact fallible men.
Some, notably T. Jefferson, could be remarkably sneaky and back-stabbing."

Why would you say such a thing, as if it were some kind of insult?
In fact, my feeeeeeeeeelings toward our Founders are the same as any normal person (especially conservative) has towards their own parents, or newly-wed spouses towards each other.
No newly-wed considers their spouse a "faultless demi-god", but does give them the ultimate living respect of sharing their lives, and raising a family together.

So how can that possibly be a bad thing, in your eyes or anybody else's?

Of course they were fallible, did not always live up to their own lofty rhetoric.
But no history book I've ever read says they were the opposite of what they claimed.
In fact, for better or worse, they were men of the Enlightenment (imho, its crowning glory), who believed in the power of reason and the Creator of Natural Laws & Rights of Men.
And the final proof of their sincerity is the government they created -- the US Constitution -- a limited, representative republic.

But you are correct in this sense: I never fault our Founders for what they didn't do (i.e., end slavery in the South), but always credit them for what they did do (i.e., US Constitution).

Sherman Logan: "In your loonng response I noted you left out the rather salient part of my comparison of the Founders to the Fire-Eaters.
That is the purpose of their rebellion.
The Founders’ rebelled to expand liberty, the Fire-Eaters to prevent its expansion."

I didn't mention it, for one, because of course I agree.
But for another, it's almost irrelevant and shifts focus away from the real point: both the Brits and Confederates started war against Americans, and both lost.
That's the correct comparison.

Sherman Logan: "All other comparison points pale in comparison.
Which is why the Founders were morally (not legally, as you seem important to stress) justified in their rebellion.
The Fire-Eaters were neither legally nor morally justified."

But my argument on the "legality" of the American Revolution is the same as the Civil War: the military powers (Brits & Confederates) which provoked & started wars against Americans thereby abdicated all legal & moral authority to govern.
In both cases they committed the ultimate act of bad-faith in revoking their 84 year-old Charter/Constitution under which Americans had previously lived.
They unilaterally broke the contract "at pleasure", and that act made their own claims unlawful.

Everything you write has an "We've always been at war with Oceania/Eurasia" flavor to it. I literally feel like i'm reading "newspeak" from the Ministry of truth.

Your commentary is full of non sequiturs and you continually draw absolute conclusions from them. I don't see where there is any point in trying to discuss this with you. It's like trying to argue about Kim Jong Un's policies with a North Korean Zampolit. There is simply no effort on your part to be objective.

DiogenesLamp: "Everything you write has an "We've always been at war with Oceania/Eurasia" flavor to it."

Then your reading comprehension has been seriously degraded by all that Lost-Causer Kool-Aid you drink.
So I'm telling you, you need to get off that stuff, and get on the conservative patriot wagon, FRiend.

Then your mind can clear, and reason prevail.

Then your mind can clear, and reason prevail.

You aren't sounding reasonable, you are sounding brainwashed. Any minute now I expect you to ask me if i'm of the body of Landru or something.

How you can argue that the British Empire is equivalent to the Southern Rebels, I simply cannot grasp. That is manifestly irrational. It is at least consistent with your notion that one rebellion is good because people have a right to rebel, but another is bad because people don't have a right to rebel. This is about the epitome of subjective rationalization.

DiogenesLamp: "How you can argue that the British Empire is equivalent to the Southern Rebels, I simply cannot grasp.
That is manifestly irrational."

Irrational?
Not if you answer these questions truthfully:

Did both Brits and Confeds revoke their 80+ year-old compacts with Americans, unilaterally and "at pleasure"?
Answer: yes, they both did in 1773/1691 and 1861/1777
Did both Brits and Confeds send military forces to seize American military property?
Answer: yes, Confeds seized dozens of Federal properties,
Brits marched on Lexington & Concord to seize American militia arms.
Did both start wars against Americans?
Answer: yes, Confeds by military assault on Federal troops in Fort Sumter,
Brits by assaulting American militia at Lexington & Concord.
Did both invade American lands?
Answer: yes, Confeds sent arms & troops into every Union state & territory they could reach, sometimes leaving trails of destruction,
likewise, Brits sent troops and supporters into every colony they could reach, sometimes leaving trails of destruction.
Did both formally declare war on the United States?
Answer: yes, King George III issued a Proclamation of Rebellion on August 23, 1775,
Confeds formally declared war on the United States May 6, 1861.

DiogenesLamp: "It is at least consistent with your notion that one rebellion is good because people have a right to rebel, but another is bad because people don't have a right to rebel.
This is about the epitome of subjective rationalization."

Rubbish, I've said no such thing, and you well know it.
What makes Brits & Confeds comparable is that both unilaterally and "at pleasure" revoked their compacts, provoked, started & formally declared war, while invading Americans.

Regardless of what you call it -- rebellion or suppression of rebellion -- both Brits & Confeds operated in violent bad-faith against Americans who still supported the old compacts & ideals.

Did both Brits and Confeds revoke their 80+ year-old compacts with Americans, unilaterally and "at pleasure"?

It is irrational that you believe that this has any meaning. It's like saying "you can't get a divorce because you took a wedding vow." Not even going to read the rest. If past experience is any guide, it is just more non sequiturs. Life is too short to get tied up in illogical snarls.

DiogenesLamp: "It is irrational that you believe that this has any meaning.
It's like saying 'you can't get a divorce because you took a wedding vow.' "

Indeed, divorce is a pretty good analogy in that there are two conditions when it's perfectly lawful:

Amicably, peacefully, by mutual consent.
Or, in Madison's words: "...by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect."

Since neither condition existed, the alleged divorce/secession was not lawful, and all claims made by Confederates against the Union were illegal.

Why is that so hard for you to "get"?