Replies

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"Dunmore's Proclamation is a historical document signed on November 7, 1775, by John Murray, 4th Earl of Dunmore, royal governor of the British Colony of Virginia.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

Pelham: "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..."

Over many years, there were several plans to use Federal funds to purchase freedom for slaves, beginning with President Jefferson in early 1800s.
All such plans would have cost far less than the Civil War in treasure alone, to say nothing of blood and hard feelings for generations in the future.

All such plans, including President Lincoln's, were rejected by slave-holders themselves, for reasons which might be obvious: slave-holding was considered necessary and appropriate for farming in hot climates, and was profitable to the point of making average Southerners considerably wealthier than their northern cousins.

So none of those plans got anywhere.

Pelham: "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..."

First of all, George Washington well knew that slavery was morally wrong, and freed his slaves in his will.
Thomas Jefferson also understood the evils of slavery, and indeed, included in his original Declaration of Independence a specific complaint against the Brits for imposing slavery on the colonies:

"He [the king of Britain] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither.
"This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain.
"Determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce:
"and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us,
"and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."

As President, Jefferson devised a plan for using Federal money to buy and free slaves, a plan which got nowhere.

But the final and key point to remember is: in 1775 (i.e., Lexington and Concord) war began when those slave-imposing Brits aggressed Americans to seize American militia arms and ammunition.
Just as, in 1861, war began when slave-holding secessionists aggressed American forts (i.e., Sumter), armories and arsenals to seize American militia arms, ammunition and other weapons of war.

So, bottom line: if you want to compare 1775 with 1861, then let's at least get the right people in their proper roles, FRiend.