Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: DiogenesLamp
If the British Colonies secession from the British Union is not a case of expecting an "existing government" to "stop governing in a geographical area", I do not know what is.

You can call our independence a secession if you want. The words seem interchangeable.

I suppose the colonists could have tried to talk Britain into having an election in the colonies to decide the matter. We chose a different path. We chose to tell them to take a hike and to take our chances on a military resolution of the issue.

The secessionists did the same thing. They could have tried to negotiate with Washington for an election, but like the colonists, they decided to have the matter decided by force of arms. Unlike the colonists, they lost the fight.. That can happen.

898 posted on 08/03/2015 3:40:49 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 894 | View Replies ]


To: Tau Food
You can call our independence a secession if you want. The words seem interchangeable.

This is my thinking too. If there is a difference, it's too subtle for me to grasp.

I suppose the colonists could have tried to talk Britain into having an election in the colonies to decide the matter.

The very base foundation of British law is a "perpetual allegiance" to the King, who rules by "Divine right." Every stone of it is built on that premise, so no, there was never any hope of people "voting" to leave the Allegiance of the King.

They could have tried to negotiate with Washington for an election,

They had elections. Washington D.C. didn't like the outcome, so they simply dismissed the results.

they decided to have the matter decided by force of arms.

You keep saying "they decided" as if they didn't live in a country founded on the principle that people had a right to leave. Why would anyone think violence should be a necessary part of leaving when you live in a country that is founded on the premise that leaving is a right?

This is like saying " You want freedom of speech? You're gonna have to fight for that. "

No, someone asserting their right does not automatically translate into "so you decided to fight? "

I would suggest that if they had "decided" to fight, they would have massed troops along the border and invaded. H3ll, if they had taken Washington D.C., it probably would have worked out for the better.

As it is, their disinclination to fight is what cost them the war.

No, they weren't trying to fight, they were trying not to fight, and perhaps they should have been more aggressive.

903 posted on 08/03/2015 3:58:11 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 898 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson