Posted on 04/28/2016 8:03:06 AM PDT by C19fan
Tory and Whig members didn’t work as parties at that time. More division as factions was the case. The term King’ s Men was used to include some. Keep in mind that by the French Revolution there were old and new Whigs.
We haven’t had mention of Tarlton yet.
There were a few friends of the colonists who spoke out on their behalf...Edmund Burke is a good example. But even they drew the line on independence and did not think the Americans were justified in throwing off allegiance to the king...although they honored their ancestors who had done the same thing in 1688.
Parliament as a whole seemed to have the attitude that the colonists were children who had to do what the adults told them to do.
Lincoln was elected to stop it's spreading to new territories
The Confederate Constitution wrote in it that it was a right to enslave the Negro.
The South did not have the right to leave the Union like the 13 Colonies did.
The South had representation and was not being treated unfairly.
The reason Jefferson gave the reasons for the Colonies rebellion was because he wanted the world to know the patience in which the Colonies had endured British abuses.
The South wanted to protect slave expansion and was upset over the election of Lincoln.
So, the two cannot be remotely compared!
The Pot should not call the Kettle "Black." The view that the Declaration applied to slaves was REJECTED BY EVERYONE in 1776.
Once again, every single state which signed that document was a slave owning state. Many of the very men that signed it were slave owners.
This notion that the words of the Declaration ought to apply to slaves was something that came along later, though I think it was Jefferson's intention to trigger this line of thought when he put those words in there.
They held that the Negro was an inferior being and should be kept in slavery.
You should see what Abraham Lincoln had to say about the subject. I think it would make you blush. Yes he wanted them free, but he then wanted them expelled from the country.
So, the real persons who had a right to revolt were the slaves, not the slave owners.
So in 1776, it is the slaves who should have won their independence, and not the colonies? Well, the British did offer freedom to any slave that would join the fight against the Americans.
So you are taking the British side in this? Cause I want you to be consistent. The Slaves had just as much a right to revolt in 1776 as they did four score and seven years later.
So in other words, you are against the creation of the USA because the slaves freedom should have come first? Does that just about sum it up?
It gets confusing because a large portion of those Tories were real Tories, shown by the fact they fled for Canada. Though the scale of that has been exaggerated. The effect on Canada was huge though, even if most Canadians don’t realize, they are motivated largely by Tory sympathies, which may explain some of the hostility towards America.
Banastre Tarleton very nearly captured Thomas Jefferson in his raid on Charlottesville in 1781. What would the British have done to Jefferson? Would he have come back alive? If Jefferson had not been President, would the President in office in 1803 have bought Louisiana from Napoleon or allowed it to fall into British hands? If so, Canada might include everything west of the Mississippi River. But maybe Texas, New Mexico and California would still belong to Mexico.
And who is the determiner of whether or not their government has become destructive to their life, their liberty, and their happiness?
Is this up to the Government to decide, or is it up to the people to decide?
If you say it is up to the people to decide, then that is exactly what they did. They decided the existing government was destructive to their life, their liberty, and their happiness, and so they chose to leave it, just as the colonists chose to leave their Union four score and seven years earlier.
That was not the case for the South, who had no just reason to leave the Union.
The Union had no just reason to compel them to remain. People have a right to independence for whatever reason they wish it. To force someone to serve you when they don't want to, is slavery. Aren't you supposed to be against that?
Aren't you supposed to be against coercion? Against forcing people to work for you against their will?
So if you are against compelled servitude, then by what right do you claim to enforce servitude on the Southern States who merely wanted to be free of the others?
The Declaration of Independence does not defend the right to disband governments for any reason.
"Light and Transient causes" are in the eyes of the beholder. The Southern States considered their causes very seriously. They regarded actions and efforts from the rest of the union to be commensurate with threats to their livelihood. Something most people take pretty seriously, even today.
They also recognized that New England was robbing them blind financially, and that since the Robber Barons of New England basically controlled the government in Washington D.C., (As it still is today) the only way they could get out from under them was through Independence.
Probably. It was Jefferson's own principles that made the deal questionable to begin with. I guess it was theoretically possible that some sour old Federalist could have been in the White House and rejected the deal, but that was not likely. It was too good an offer to pass up.
Since Slavery was legal in the Union, Since Lincoln said "If they like their slavery, they can keep their slavery", how were they fighting to keep it?
Seems as if they already had it, and the Union had no intentions of taking it away from them. (For the first 2 years of the war, anyway.)
They were fighting to get away from Washington D.C. and the control of the New England power Barons.
Lincoln was elected to stop it's spreading to new territories
Pretty hard to do when the Constitution just about guarantees it to remain legal throughout the nation.
The Confederate Constitution wrote in it that it was a right to enslave the Negro.
So did the US Constitution, but in much more subdued language.
The South did not have the right to leave the Union like the 13 Colonies did.
They had exactly as much right.
The South had representation and was not being treated unfairly.
Representation has nothing to do with a right to leave. In a meeting of two wolves and a sheep, the sheep may have "representation" but it won't do it any good when it comes to a vote on what's for dinner.
That is pretty much the situation the South found itself in in 1860.
Some Liberal, Race-Obsessed young Politician from Illinois was going to "Executive Order" them to death if they stayed in the Union.
They had representation in the Congress to deal with Tariff issues.
The Declaration of Independence recognized the natural right of rebellion against LEGITIMATE dangers, not imaginary ones.
What you are advocating is anarchy.
And do you think the Confederate States would have allowed one of their States just to leave the Confederacy if it 'felt like it'?
So, the only people who actually had a right to rebel under the principals of the Declaration of Independence and natural law were the SLAVES, NOT THE SLAVE OWNERS.
Can you cite any references for the statements you make in this post?
Thanks.
They had every right to leave.
They had representation in the Congress to deal with Tariff issues.
You don't grasp that two wolves and a sheep thing do you? 75% of the US Exports in 1860 were Southern Agriculture Products. Virtually all the trade flowed through New York which took a sizable cut out of every transaction. They had wangled laws which made it difficult for the European nations to trade directly with the South.
New England was controlling trade form both directions, and they were getting very substantial cuts on the transactions both ways.
The Declaration of Independence recognized the natural right of rebellion against LEGITIMATE dangers, not imaginary ones.
I think you are too ignorant of History to understand the dangers which that New England Robber Barons Cabal represented for the Southern States. They basically controlled all trade, and they skimmed a cut off of the vast bulk of the transactions.
Just how do you suppose New York got so wealthy? The Dominant market in Europe was for Cotton and Tobacco. The Rest of the Nation's products only represented 25% of all US Exports.
What you are advocating is anarchy.
No, what we have now is anarchy, what I am advocating is consistency with the founding principles of this Nation; That people have a right to be free and independent if they wish.
So, the only people who actually had a right to rebel under the principals of the Declaration of Independence and natural law were the SLAVES, NOT THE SLAVE OWNERS.
Yes, I'm sure that's what all the Founders were thinking when they signed that document. Are you some sort of loon? Do you know how ridiculous it sounds to assert that Slave owning founders intended to free the slaves with the Declaration of Independence?
That is "transgender" logic. It makes as much sense as a man thinking he's a woman and wanting everyone else to go along with the delusion.
George Washington’s Secret Six: The Spy Ring That Saved the American Revolution
Check this book out if you haven’t already. Fascinating stuff.
Oh dear, such alot for you to learn.
When the constitution was ratified by the states it created a more perfect union of one people (the articles of confederation being somewhat deficient).
The constitution wisely assigned the exercise of powers to the federal and state governments, with all others being retained by the people themselves, the people being soverign.
Now this idea that the people being soverign was quite revolutionary as that was always held to be the right of kings or of the state.
But we made the people soverign. A part of the “one people” cannot just up and leave without approval of the rest of the people.
The south did not seek that approval and thus were in rebellion.
Using the events of 1776 or the Declaration will give you no aid in your arguments. The colonies were not treated as one with Britain, and colonists did not have English rights even though many were English born. This is the whole history of grievances leading up to 1776. If Britain had considered colonists equally and treated them as one people with themselves no revolution would have occurred. The principal grievence was not having representation in Parliament and thus no say in taxation, trade, ect.
The soverign people of the south who were one with the soverign people of the north had every right to a say, and had strong representation in Congress.
The fact that southern votes may not have carried a majority in all matters does not do away with the union of one people.
Southern apologist have long tried to make these two very different things seem the same in trying to legitimize their errors. The sad part of the apologists is that they are actually disgracing their forefathers who fought in 1776, and fought for ratification to create the one people. I always thought this was the biggest shame of the southern leaders in trying to refute by arms their own fathers and grandfathers 1776 beliefs.
The tragedy, of course, is that so many of our soverign people in the north and the south had to die to rectify this grievious error of thought.
You mean the way the Colonists left the British Union? Sure they can. After all, we did.
I reject your premise. Natural law dictates that people may leave whenever they wish, and for whatever reasons suit them, and they do not have to beg indulgence of others to do so.
In 1914, 1915, and 1916, one of the best investments deals Americans were encouraged, by brokers, to buy into was German Imperial War Bonds.
All that “went South” in 1917.
You have to show just cause for doing so.
And you can't grasp the fact that the South was still represented in Congress and in the Senate.
In fact, they were overrepresented, due to the 3.5 rule where Blacks were counted as part of the population for purposes of representation.
No one controlled anything, the South was fairly represented.
They didn't attempt to leave the Union over the Tariff issue, but over the slave expansion issue.
Your view of economic history is greatly lacking.
The South had joined the Union and was responsible for obeying it's requirements.
The South wasn't letting it's slaves go, and track those down who had escaped and forced them to return, no matter where they resided in the North.
You are advocating anarchy, and no nation can survive the idea that anyone can leave on any whim.
The Confederate States had they been successful would not allowed any of their States just to leave when they felt like it.
Now, stop posting your idiotic nonsense to me.
But it was the later South who rejected the idea of natural rights (which you claim they are claiming) saying that the Declaration was only for White men.
The Founding Father's for the most part hated slavery and had every intention of ending it.
That is why they had no problem with acknowledging the truth of the Declaration of Independence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.