Posted on 04/28/2016 8:03:06 AM PDT by C19fan
A few paces west of the public beach in Yorktown, Virginia, is a little cave looking out toward the water. We all know Yorktown from history class. This is where, in October 1781, the British army commanded by Lord Cornwallis surrendered to the Americans under General George Washington and the French under the Comte de Rochambeau.
It’s not much of a cave, really, but tourists by the thousands stop to peep into it, as they have for more than two centuries. It is known to this day as “Cornwallis’s Cave,” and for most of our history visitors have been told that this is where the British general took refuge during the last days of the siege. He hid there, guides said, and visitors nodded knowingly. That is because, as we all know, Cornwallis was a coward, and it was just like him to find such a fittingly ignominious hole wherein to snivel and whimper while, in the defenses around the town, his troops were destroyed.
(Excerpt) Read more at theamericanconservative.com ...
The one who is delusional is yourself and your warped view of history.
Thanks for the book tip. I’ll get that one!
There are investments, and then there are investments. Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
Matthew, Catholic chapter six, Protestant verses nineteen to twenty one,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James
Agree for sure. The “perfumed princes” that we now have that pass for generals, all they can think to do is get on TV and spill everything. There is no way in this world that America could win WWII with the so called leadership we have now. It just isn’t possible.
“Natural law dictates that people may leave whenever they wish, and for whatever reasons suit them, and they do not have to beg indulgence of others to do so.”
Reductio ad absurdum. What you have defined is anarchy not natural law.
There is not a single significant contributor to the Declaration or 1776 that ever would have penned such a statement. Years of reasons and pleadings and petitions preceeded Lexington and Concord.
Your ignorance of this history is breathtaking.
Spoken with ease I might note
You have to show just cause for doing so.
You don't have to show any "Cause" to leave. The idea itself is ridiculous. What sort of "Cause" is going to convince your oppressors that they should let you go?
When the colonists showed their list of grievances to the King, he simply ignored them. He obviously didn't agree that any of them were sufficient to allow them to leave. Showing "Cause" is pointless when someone doesn't want you to leave. No "Cause" that you show, will every be sufficient in the minds of your oppressors.
Are you a F***ing idiot or something? Tell me what "Cause" a wife can show to an abusive husband that will make him say, "Oh well then, since you've proven i'm not fit to be your husband, I guess i'll just let you go." What he will do is beat her for daring to suggest she had a right to leave him.
Once again, are you a F***ing idiot?
NO "CAUSE" WILL BE ACCEPTED AS GOOD ENOUGH TO SATISFY THE OPPRESSORS. The very idea that your oppressors should get to decide whether your reasons for wanting to leave them are good enough is nonsensical.
Humans have a Natural Law right to leave. You obviously see this NATURAL LAW right in the case of slaves, yet you are utterly blind to the exact same concept as applied to the Southern States.
Now, stop posting your idiotic nonsense to me.:
Why should I? You have to show CAUSE, why I should let you go!
Show Cause! Show Cause! Show Cause!
Don't be a hypocrite. You can't leave until you show cause why I should let you leave! Show Cause! Show Cause!
I can already tell you that none of your reasons will be accepted by me, but since you insist that "Cause" must justify me letting you go, I demand you SHOW CAUSE!
Stop trying to use your NATURAL LAW right to leave. Your position is that there is no such natural right, so therefore you must stay and put up with me.
So they kept them in slavery? That is a non-sequitur. Obviously they didn't accept this concept as a "Universal Truth" in 1776.
But it was the later South who rejected the idea of natural rights (which you claim they are claiming) saying that the Declaration was only for White men.
You don't seem to be grasping the fact that this is exactly what the Founders believed in 1776. Again, they didn't let any of their slaves go.
The Founding Father's for the most part hated slavery and had every intention of ending it.
No they didn't. Jefferson never let his slaves go. Washington made provisions for manumission of his slaves upon his death, but while he was alive, he kept them. Stop trying to force history to conform to what you want to believe.
That is why they had no problem with acknowledging the truth of the Declaration of Independence.
No they didn't, but the person who's having a problem with acknowledging the truth of the Declaration of Independence is this person who is arguing in 2016 that it applied to slaves.
No it didn't, and the evidence of this is so vast, you have to be a deluded kook to believe otherwise. The Declaration was *MADE* to apply to slaves later, (Starting in Massachusetts), but at the time it was written, it most certainly was not intended to do so.
Now if you chose to live on Gumdrop mountain and ride your Unicorn back and forth through the Cotton candy forest to the Chocolate river, I can't stop you, but if you want to be taken for a rational person, you need to stop pushing a made up fantasy as reality.
Go pet your unicorn.
That is what the British said as well.
There is not a single significant contributor to the Declaration or 1776 that ever would have penned such a statement.
And so you presume to speak for them? I think their words and deeds speak for them far better than your attempts to foist this incorrect and ignorant position.
Years of reasons and pleadings and petitions preceeded Lexington and Concord.
And what was the effect of all these "Years of reasons and pleadings and petitions"? If you say "No effect at all!" Then you are moving towards the beginnings of wisdom.
The Union of Britain rejected all of their "causes". None of them were sufficient to convince the King to let the 13 states secede.
Presenting the list of "causes" turned out to be just so much pomp and circumstance for any good it did. Ergo, it really wasn't relevant to their right to leave.
And the South had no just cause to leave.
They didn't like losing an election so they thought they could divide the Union over it.
That is anarchy and has nothing to do with natural law, which they themselves rejected!
So, the one who is an IDIOT is you.
Gradually slavery was ended in many States.
What changed was the South's view about natural law and the Declaration of Independence, as typified in the Drew Scott decision!
But the VP of the Confederacy Alexander Stephens made it known that the Confederacy was going to be built on the rock of RACIAL INEQUAILTY, that is why the 'negro slavery' was written right into their Constitution!
Stephen's admitted that the Founder's had wanted to end slavery and were wrong to do so!
You, like so many Neo-Confederates, want to rewrite history and ignore the facts.
The South had no legal right to leave the Union.
Had Andrew Jackson been President instead of Lincoln, who was kinder, he would have hung the lot of them as traitors!
You do know that they have proven that unicorns did exist?
But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other-though last, not least: the new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions-African slavery as it exists among us-the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the Constitution, was the prevailing idea at the time. The Constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly used against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it-when the “storm came and the wind blew, it fell.”
Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. [Applause.]
http://www.csaconstitution.com/p/alexander-h.html
bkmk
Actually, you required large amounts of French help, but admittedly Washington was head and shoulders the best general on either side in the war.
The British Government considered America British territory and therefore assumed that basic supplies could be obtained from there - and mostly they were. Contrary to American mythology, there were plenty of local Loyalists who joined up.
True, but then this is a commonplace characteristic of commanders of armies. They need to have a great deal of self confidence to be effective, and its all too easy for that to manifest itself in arrogance and ego and haughtiness.
I dont recall the colonists not having a representation in Congress assembled either.
And he only got disparaged because he was so effective.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.