Replies

” But, George III lost the War of Independence in America. “

Evidently your judgement on the merits of a secession/independence movement depend upon the success or failure of that movement. Had the Founding Fathers been defeated they would be having the same abuse heaped on their heads that is now reserved for the Confederates.

“And today, nearly every American (North, South, East and West) is grateful that Lincoln preserved the Union....One nation, under God, indivisible. We’re so lucky to be here.”

Well I’ve heard more than a few Americans think it didn’t turn out so great. A powerful centralized national government impervious to outside correction is part of Lincoln’s legacy. States are now mere administrative districts of the federal Leviathan.

So when the vast array of executive agencies dictates rules affecting the tiniest aspects of American daily life, from the size of flush toilets to the kind of light bulbs we can use, Americans must accept it. And when that central government orders every American to honor gay marriage we have to obey. That’s the legacy that came wrapped inside of indivisible union.

“One nation, under God, indivisible. We’re so lucky to be here.”

It’s hardly fair to blame God for what goes on in this country. The spirit of anti-Christ would be a better fit.

I discussed three rebellions: 1) the Jacobite Uprising (unsuccessful), 2) the American colonial rebellion (successful), and 3) the American "secessionist" rebellion (unsuccessful).

The first one was about religion (Catholic/Protestant) and the politics of Scotland/Great Britain. My ancestors fought for the losing side, but I can't really tell you now that history has shown that one side was more just than the other.

The second one (our American war for independence) concerned whether the American colonies were to be governed by a king on the other side of the Atlantic. Setting aside the monarchy issue, I think a good argument can be made that it made sense for Americans to govern themselves. Remember, it took weeks just to communicate a message across the Atlantic. The colonies had matured to a degree that they could govern themselves and so I think that rebellion made a lot of sense from a purely logistical point of view.

The third rebellion concerned the American "secessionists" desire for independence from the USA. The "secessionists" claimed that "secession" was absolutely necessary to preserve slavery (and they were probably right about that). Slavery had had a long track record in this world, but the desire to preserve slavery was running against the tides of history. For those who owned slaves, the prospective loss of their investment in human beings naturally clouded their judgement. At the time, slaves as an asset class may have been the most valuable asset class in the world. (At least, that is what the "secessionists" claimed.)

I don't judge the merits of these three rebellions by who won or who lost. In terms of history, I don't think it now matters much to most of the world whether George II or Bonnie Prince Charlie won (and, again,my family was on the losing side of that struggle). In truth, the Stuarts were just as rotten as their enemies.

I do think that the world benefited from the success of the American colonies. I don't think it made sense for Great Britain to try to govern prosperous colonies on the other side of an ocean. And, I think that the American colonists went on to create the greatest nation in the history of the world. I think the USA has done much good. So, that is why I am glad that the colonies won that struggle.

I don't think that our world would have benefited from the preservation of slavery for any length of time. I am sorry that so many people had to die and I am even sorry that some slaveholders lost what was genuinely a huge investment, but it was time for slavery to go. So, I'm glad that the "secessionists" lost their rebellion.

There are not many of you who believe that the wrong side won our Civil War. The USA is popular in every section this country. The South is every bit as patriotic as any other section.

You have no real reason to believe that a CSA wouldn't have grown into a powerful, bloated bureaucracy on its own. As shown by Wallet Hub (a financial website), red states are more financially dependent on the Federal government than blue states. Overall, the Federal government is being used to transfer financial resources from blue states to red states. When it comes to using a big, central government as an ATM, the South is at the front of the line.

Southern states were also at the front of the line when it came to ratifying the 16th Amendment (our federal income tax). Alabama was the first state to ratify that amendment, Kentucky was second, South Carolina was third, Mississippi was fifth, Oklahoma was sixth, Maryland was seventh, Georgia was eighth and Texas was ninth. And, despite all this, you somehow conclude that the people of the South don't like big, centralized government?

You live in a dream world, friend. The South is as responsible as any section of this country for the fact that we have a monstrous central government in Washington, DC.

Pelham: "Evidently your judgement on the merits of a secession/independence movement depend upon the success or failure of that movement.
Had the Founding Fathers been defeated they would be having the same abuse heaped on their heads that is now reserved for the Confederates."

But FRiend, great efforts have been made to explain to you the stark differences between our Founders' Revolution of 1776 and Fire Eaters secessions of 1860-61.
So let me summarize, as briefly as possible:

In 1776 Founders, especially Ben Franklin, had spent nearly 20 years in England trying to negotiate a better deal for American colonies.
They wanted "no taxation without representation".
By stark contrast Jefferson Davis' emissaries spent barely 8 weeks in Washington hoping to negotiate secession.
In 1776 for several years, Brits had acted aggressively towards Americans -- arbitrarily imposing taxes, denying requests for representation in parliament, revoking the Massachusetts charter, sending thousands of troops to occupy Boston, declaring a state of rebellion and war against Americans.
By stark contrast, in 1860 the Southern Slave-Power had dominated Washington, DC politics almost continuously since the republic's founding in 1787.
They were not only represented they were over-represented due to the Constitution's 3/5 of slaves rule.
In 1776 Founders listed over 30 real reasons for Declaring Independence, including:
By stark contrast Fire Eaters' phony Reasons for Secession mentioned not one of our Founders' reasons, but instead only one actual concern: what might happen long term to their "domestic institution" of slavery.
In 1776 when Founders signed their Declaration of Independence, Brits had already declared and waged war against Americans for 18 months, fighting over two dozen battles & attacks, causing 3,500 American casualties, including over 800 Americans killed.
By stark contrast, in December 1860 when Fire Eaters first wrote their Declarations of Secession, the country was at peace, and the only military actions were by secessionist seizing dozens of Federal properties -- forts, ships, arsenal & mints, etc.
By further contrast, by the time Union forces killed the first Confederate soldier directly in battle, on June 10, 1861, dozens of Union troops had already died, over 100 wounded and 500 captured as POWs.

Point is: in early 1861, the far better comparison is not of Confederates with Founders, but rather Confederates assaulting Fort Sumter with Brits assaulting Lexington & Concord, and the Union with our long-suffering Founders.

Battle of Lexington & Concord, April 19,1775:

Battle of Fort Sumter, April 12, 1861: