DiogenesLamp: "Noise. Skip."
DiogenesLamp: "Too long. Skip."
Nonsense, the real fact is:
Posted on 03/28/2019 8:50:21 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
DiogenesLamp: "Noise. Skip."
DiogenesLamp: "Too long. Skip."
Nonsense, the real fact is:
But it's irrelevant which way you look at it -- separate country or rebels in the USA.
Either way, they disenfranchised themselves, and remained disenfranchised until, until they formally requested re-enfranchisement.
Which over time they did, then reasserted political control and effectively nullified the 13th, 14th & 15th for nearly 100 years.
DiogenesLamp: "And Abraham Lincoln deliberately disenfranchised them because he knew very well that he did not and would not have the 'consent of the governed.' "
Lincoln (or any other Republican) disenfranchised nobody, they disenfranchised themselves in declaring secession.
Republicans in Congress did set some conditions under which former Confederates could be re-enfranchised.
Nonsense, you didn't read it because you hate, hate the truth.
It is not. As a separate country, they never had any right to vote in American elections. As an actual state, they never lost the right to vote, because they cannot lose the right to vote. It's guaranteed by the US Constitution.
Taking away the right to vote is Tyranny. Forcing people to vote the way Washington DC dictates is also Tyranny.
First, is it a fact in evidence that Washington took such an oath?
Second, no oath can outlast a major breech of the faith from which it came.
Think of a marriage -- one spouse's commitment does not necessarily outlast the other's infidelity.
Washington did not take up arms against Brits until they had broken good faith with Americans.
Pelham: "Like the Lincoln would do 90 years later, George III declared the colonials to be traitors, in rebellion, denied that they had any right to break away and form their own country."
Presidents Buchanan & Lincoln both said that unilateral secession at pleasure was unlawful, but neither was willing to go to war for that reason alone.
That's why the Union didn't respond militarily before Fort Sumter.
Both presidents and most Northerners were willing to take up arms against rebellion and war.
Exactly wrong -- it's your efforts to obscure the fact that your own people, Southern Democrats ruled Washington DC in alliance with Northern Democrats, those "Northeastern power brokers" in New York, ruled basically from 1801 until secession in 1861 -- denying it is your deliberate deception here.
DiogenesLamp: "Urban. Liberal. Wealthy. Race Obsessed people in New York..."
Democrats in 1860, Democrats tiday.
In 1860 they allied with Southern slaveholding Democrats, today they ally with Left Coast Democrats.
But it's still just Democrats, it's always been Democrats.
Republicans were always a quite different group of people.
DiogenesLamp: "Another example of your cognitive impairment which doesn't allow you to see anything that contradicts what you wish to believe.
Facts you don't like are simply invisible to you."
So, it should be real easy for you, right?
Go ahead, name a "fact" which you say supports your wackiest opinions.
The Brits did in fact occupy New York for years after their surrender at Yorktown and for many months even after the Treaty of Paris was signed.
And Charleston SC was in nowhere near the same category of importance as New York or, say, New Orleans.
Charleston was a relative backwater, even in the South itself.
So regardless of their own and your feelings of self-importance, Charleston did not matter more to Confederates than the Northwest Territories did to George Washington.
Naw, you just hate the truth with a passion, can't bear to go anywhere near it, that's the real reason here.
That's yet more nonsense.
Necessity like abuse and usurpation is a matter of fact & law.
Our Founders defined what it is.
Secessionists in 1860 ignored the Founders' definitions and declared secession at pleasure.
Blah. More noise.
I'm on to this game. Whatever you are shown, you dismiss or distort.
Anderson occupied Fort Sumter for many months after South Carolina seceded. The difference between the two is that the British made it clear that they would leave.
And Charleston SC was in nowhere near the same category of importance as New York or, say, New Orleans.
"Importance" is in the eye of the beholder. Clearly people think their own harbor entrance is "important."
But thank you for conceding my point that continued British occupation of an entrance to an important harbor, would not be tolerated.
As has been pointed out to you countless times, the Canadians, who were under exactly the same condition as the colonies, didn't believe Independence was a "necessity." They were quite willing to live under the same conditions to which the Colonies objected, all the while remaining loyal to the United Kingdom.
People can judge for themselves what they believe is necessary.
That’s nice rationalization. And colonial Colonel Washington still broke his oath to the Crown by taking up arms and rebelling against it.
“Presidents Buchanan & Lincoln both said that unilateral secession at pleasure was unlawful”
President Jackson thought the same. Charles Francis Adams Jr concluded otherwise in his Shall Cromwell Have A Statue.
And while Buchanan thought secession was unlawful he also thought it un-Constitutional for a President to send the army to wage war on a State.
SCOTUS never had a chance to rule on any of it and Lincoln settled the legal issue by the venerable argument of might makes right.
Naw, it's just the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God.
And that's why your LC koolaid drinking mind hates it, loathes it, and won't go anywhere near it.
But you've shown nothing for me to "dismiss or distort", certainly nothing serious or honest.
The few quotes you have you take out of context or provide no provenance.
And you misinterpret everything you read, inserting your own opinions into other people's very different words.
And you never stop keeping on keeping on with the same old nonsense.
So I'll ask again, give us even one true fact -- i.e. a well sourced, in full context, undisputed by historians, from the time, which says exactly what you've been saying here in all these CW threads.
I'll wait.
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.