Replies

You seem to be justifying anything a gov does OK as long as everyone is represented. That doesn’t fly, as even we know that full official representation doesn’t mean intolerable choices won’t be made for law. So did Tom Jefferson seem to understand this, stating after the fact that we must be on guard (I’m not a big fan of Jeff, either). He didn’t say we simply be on guard for not being represented.

TWR was not the only reason for war. The BOR basically tells the story of the RevWar and its circumstances. Soldiers were being sent to the colonies long before the Lex issue, and they were forced into people’s homes to give them board. The Boston Massacre happened years before open hostilities, and was instigated by rebels against redcoats stationed in these “treasonous” parts. Instead of Lex, we could’ve had Salem a few months earlier, but tempers were tempered. Just the fact that rebels presented any kind of front was a military threat.

The DOI was a full year plus after war started, when Boston had been under siege for about that whole duration. The purposes were nicely laid out long after the fact. In fact that was a complaint of Adams - why can’t we easily declare independence when we’ve already been hostile for such a long time?

You cannot juxtapose Confederate rebels into British, when clearly it was all Brit territory prior and there was no such thing as a USA. There was no such thing as a CSA before USA. We were the rebels as surely as the Southerners were. I’m proud of that, not ashamed, and it’s better we start calling our side rebels rather than avoiding the fact to make it somehow nicer. Seems to me most think rebel is bad, so only Confeds get that nomenclature.

the OlLine Rebel: "I’m proud of that, not ashamed, and it’s better we start calling our side rebels rather than avoiding the fact to make it somehow nicer.
Seems to me most think rebel is bad, so only Confeds get that nomenclature."

Why should anyone be ashamed of their Rebel?
I'd bet a lot of guys had their first, ahem, experience with a young lady in one of these... ;-)

the OlLine Rebel: "You seem to be justifying anything a gov does OK as long as everyone is represented."

Ah, no.
You must be reading just what you want to see, not what I actually wrote, FRiend.

the OlLine Rebel: "You cannot juxtapose Confederate rebels into British, when clearly it was all Brit territory prior and there was no such thing as a USA."

Yes you can, and should because, just like 1861 secessionists, Brits in 1776 were aggressors attacking and seizing American property, threatening violence if their demands were not met, and fighting to protect their "rights" to demand services from colonists, without just compensation or representation.

Yes, of course, my argument has always been that there is no serious comparison between 1776 and 1861.
But, since our pro-Confederates keep telling us there is, I'm simply pointing out that if you insist on making such a juxtaposition, then let's be accurate and call secessionists "British" and call the United States "colonists". ;-)

clearly it was all Brit territory prior and there was no such thing as a USA. There was no such thing as a CSA before USA. We were the rebels as surely as the Southerners were.

The American revolutionaries were indeed called Rebels by those who remained loyal to the legitimate government of British North America. And you might be interested to learn that Lincoln wasn't the first ruler to offer emancipation; the Crown offered emancipation for all slaves who fought for the royal government against the American rebels. Look up 'Lord Dunmore's Proclamation' of Nov 7th, 1775

For modern neo-Yankees to be morally consistent they must side with King George III against the 'slave owning rebel traitors' led by George Washington, et al. But they are notably silent about this earlier emancipation, and this earlier rebellion against legitimate government when they begin stirring up hatred against the Confederacy. Which may tell you that they are afraid of alienating a larger audience by applying their arguments against the Founding Fathers, or that there is something else at work that includes more than a small dose of hypocrisy.

"Patriots (also known as Rebels, Revolutionaries, Congress-Men or American Whigs) were the colonists of the British Thirteen United Colonies who violently rebelled against British control during the American Revolution and in July 1776 declared the United States of America an independent nation. "

http://tinyurl.com/2ahe6t8

"Dunmore's Proclamation is a historical document signed on November 7, 1775, by John Murray, 4th Earl of Dunmore, royal governor of the British Colony of Virginia. The Proclamation declared martial law and promised freedom for slaves of American Patriots who left their masters and joined the royal forces."

"In the official document, he declared martial law and adjudged all patriots as traitors to the crown. Furthermore, the document declared "all indentured servants, Negroes, or others...free that are able and willing to bear arms..." Dunmore expected such a revolt to have several effects. Primarily, it would bolster his own forces, which, cut off from reinforcements from British-held Boston, numbered only around 300. Secondarily, he hoped that such an action would create a fear of a general slave uprising amongst the colonists and would force them to abandon the revolution."

http://tinyurl.com/an8psvu