To: Blood of Tyrants
"To argue otherwise would be to say that it was illegitimate for the colonies to seceed from Great Britian.", The colonies did not "seceed" from GB. They rebelled against it. By any legal definition they were guilty of treason against the Crown, and they knew and accepted that fact. Secession is a legal question. Rebellion is always illegal even when justified or "legitimate". The south in 1860 made no attempt to justify rebellion on moral grounds as the colonies did in 1776. They made no attempt to have a legitimate secession process by gaining the agreement of the other parties to the constitution on the question of disolving the union. They simply rebelled thinking they could get away with it. They guessed wrong.
96 posted on
07/02/2003 7:17:03 AM PDT by
Ditto
(You are free to form your own opinions, but not your own facts.)
To: Ditto
Beautifully Put.
99 posted on
07/02/2003 7:40:09 AM PDT by
hobbes1
( Hobbes1TheOmniscient® "I know everything so you don't have to" ;)
To: Ditto
You are just playing with words. The fact ramains that they were a part of Great Britian until they decided that it was time to sever the political bonds that tied them together.
No matter waht you call it, that is secession.
116 posted on
07/02/2003 3:23:45 PM PDT by
Blood of Tyrants
(Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
To: Ditto
P.S. Also, they didn't "rebel". They sent a nice polite, well worded letter to inform the king that they would no longer bend their knee to him. The colonies would have been happy to have never fired the first shot but G.B. decided that the colonies were "rebelling".
117 posted on
07/02/2003 3:26:19 PM PDT by
Blood of Tyrants
(Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson