Replies

Indeed, that was precisely the sin committed by Brits on May 24, 1774, when they unilaterally and at pleasure abrogated their 83 year-old compact, the Massachusetts Charter of 1691. Their act of unilateral abrogation is what made British rule over Massachusetts invalid, and justified all American actions leading up to Revolutionary War.

Yeah, they did have the right to abrogate that charter. According to their form of government, that was perfectly legal.

It is starting to get funny reading your arguments while noting your seemingly complete inability to see the parallels with the Confederates in the civil war or how the two events were alike. On the one hand, you simply want the Confederates to be the bad guys, and on the other you want the Crown to be the bad guys, and you are perfectly willing to do logical backflips to marry those two ideas together.

The fact that the Crown far better represents the actions of the Union, and that the Confederates far better represent the actions of the Colonists, is simply something you cannot accept, and so here you are constantly splitting hairs and drawing distinctions without a difference in an effort to rationalize your logical conundrum.

Like I said, it's getting pretty funny. :)

DiogenesLamp: "The fact that the Crown far better represents the actions of the Union, and that the Confederates far better represent the actions of the Colonists, is simply something you cannot accept..."

For the simple & obvious reason it's not true.
The apt comparison is of Brits to Confederates because both abrogated their previous "compact" unilaterally, "at pleasure", and both started war against Americans.

Of course you don't like those facts, but they remain facts nonetheless, sir.