The rebellion continues in 2005!
There was no rebellion when the Southern States left the Union, and there is no rebellion now. You're lying for polemical effect. Why are you emulating the worst propagandists the world has ever seen?
Wow, what was that again? Pro-slaver secessionists arresting elected popular political leaders in Eastern Tenn & loyal Americans fighting for the Union must be "crushed out instantly, the leaders arrested, and summarily punished!" (i.e., gunned down for being loyal American citizens?)
1. Your statement is pure propaganda bull. "Gunned down" is a color phrase added by you for polemical effect and to heighten the drama of the point you are attempting to make, at the expense of the responsible officers of the State of Tennessee.
2. When Tennessee held its plebiscite to leave the Union, the majority ruled. The statewide vote was 2:1 in favor.
3. States are the basic political unit in our part of North America, because our history and our organic law make them the basis of government in America. States may join or leave the Union, but dissident municipalities within a State may not partition a State.
4. The Unionists who took arms against their State were breaking the law -- which the Confederates were not doing -- and needed to be stopped and brought to justice. They were hurting their home State and their neighbors. They had no other State, and no other neighbors. They hadn't the right to take arms against them because the majority took Tennessee out of the Union, any more than someone else would have had a right to take arms against their state government because Texas, say, had joined the Union.
Today's Neo-Confederate hidden agenda is dedicated to turning the clock back some 150 years.
You'd be merely obtuse if you actually believed that, but you put it up as a malevolent smear on the people who disagree with you. Your statement is so clearly not true, that you should be embarrassed to put things like that up over your signature.
You catch on quickly lol
The "heighten the drama" effect works! You always draft a responding speech which goes on, and on, and on, similar to old Hubert Humphrey's endless speeches used to, Pilgrim.
Why are you emulating the worst propagandists the world has ever seen? Thank you for the compliment but I'd rather you continue holding that title.
..."the responsible officers of the State of Tennessee." Oh, yes, I of course I recall the irresponsible, brutal Confederate officers which arrested or gunned down pro-Unionist Eastern Tennessee citizens.
Do you want to hold your own little "plebiscite to leave the Union?" Just purchase an overseas airline ticket, one way, it's not complicated.
If you really would like to leave the Union please take along the hippie, lesbo, commies from Vermont, still screaming wacko Dean is not President.....will you?
I love the numeric method you issued, makes for easier readability and quick responses.
Okay, we are addressing #3 I take it.
"States may join or leave the Union" once congress approves petition for statehood, but once in, no chickening out :)
Moving right along. #4 "The Unionists who took arms against their State were breaking 'the law' -- which the Confederates were not doing -- and needed to be stopped and brought to justice. They were hurting their home State and their neighbors. They had no other State, and no other neighbors. They hadn't the right to take arms against them because the majority took Tennessee out of the Union, any more than someone else would have had a right to take arms against their state government because Texas, say, had joined the Union.
I reprinted your statement in its entirety so you could review it for required alterations, as in "The Unionists who took arms against their State were breaking the law"
Whose law? Do mean "the law" as in the so-called 'law' of Confederate traitors who seized control by armed force? That 'law'? Similar to the 'laws' of Nazi Germany, or maybe Saddam's (former)'laws', or how about the mullah's Islamic 'laws'?
You are the one who knowing IS embarrassed with your mob rule 'laws'.
You stated you are no a 'neo-confederate, so what's the beef with the following statement? "Today's Neo-Confederate hidden agenda is dedicated to turning the clock back some 150 years."
On February 8, 1861, the first time Tennessee voted, the state voted 70,156 to 39,317 to remain in the Union. But in May, Governor Harris and his cohorts in the state legislature ignored the expressed will of the people and seceded. The politicians aligned themselves with the Confederacy and invited the Rebel armies to overrun the state. An election was held on June 27th to rubber stamp the actions of the politicians. East Tennessee still voted overwhelmingly to stay in the Union, but the state as a whole voted for separation. But given the presence of Confederate armies and widespread intimidation of Unionists, the legitimacy of this election was questioned by many. As the Louisville Journal commented on May 13th during the run up to the election:
"The spirit of secession appears to have reached its culminating point in Tennessee. Certainly the fell spirit has, at yet, reached no higher point of outrageous tyranny. The whole of the late proceedings in Tennessee has been as gross an outrage as ever was perpetrated by the worst tyrant of all the earth. The whole secession movement on the part of the Legislature of the State has been lawless, violent and tumultuous. The pretense of submitting the Ordinance of Secession to the vote of the people of the State after placing her military power and resources at the disposal and under the command of the Confederate States without any authority from the people, is as bitter and insolent a mockery of popular rights as the human mind could invent."
Given the behavior of Harris and his Confederate sympathizing politicians, I can understand why the people of East Tennessee would fear a lawless tyranny based in Richmond more than any possible tyranny from Washington.