Posted on 01/05/2018 12:07:18 PM PST by DoodleDawg
By 1776 King George had long since rendered his own opinion irrelevant by, among others:
These made US independence a matter of absolute necessity, not choice, and most certainly not "at pleasure".
Our Founders recognized necessity as in 1776 and mutual consent as in 1788.
But neither condition existed in 1860 which makes the Fire Eaters' actions "at pleasure".
Founders considered such secession little different from rebellion, which none of them supported.
DiogenesLamp: " Permission is not required to attain the right under God's law to be independent of people with whom you no longer wish to associate. "
Any contract has to be unwound lawfully, according to conditions recognized in the contract. Our Founders recognized mutual consent and necessity as valid reasons for disunion.
They did not recognize "at pleasure" as valid.
But as you well know, all such debate is irrelevant to the fact that after declaring secession, Fire Eaters proceeded to provoke war, start war, declare war and wage war in Union states.
Then they refused to stop fighting on any terms better than "Unconditional Surrender".
So the legitimacy of secession is irrelevant to what came later, as you well know.
;-)
DiogenesLamp has his own posting-points which he trots out almost regardless of the thread topic.
Oh well...
You keep saying "necessity" as though that were not a matter of opinion. I keep pointing out that the Canadians were treated just the same as the Americans, and yet they didn't see it as a necessity to become independent.
Indeed, about 1/3rd of the American Colonists didn't see it as a "necessity" either.
So your "necessity" reduces to "at pleasure", whether you want to admit it or not.
The thread topic is merely a starting point. Discussions evolve from there. That they keep coming back to the overthrow of fundamental principles which occurred in 1861 is simply a consequence of the history.
But Canadians were not treated the same, by any stretch of imagination.
Few if any of the two dozen+ items listed in the Declaration of Independence were visited on Canadians.
That entire history was different.
DiogenesLamp: "Indeed, about 1/3rd of the American Colonists didn't see it as a "necessity" either.
So your "necessity" reduces to "at pleasure", whether you want to admit it or not."
As you well know, there's a huge difference between "necessity" and "at pleasure" but you blind yourself to it because it strikes at the heart of your conceits.
Necessity, for example, is when your opponent has already declared war on you, as Brits did to our Founders and as Confederates did in 1861.
At pleasure is when you lose a valid election, as in 1860 or indeed, as in 2016.
Of course, Democrats are never quite clear on such matters, always super-eager to rise up and "resist" regardless of how legitimate their defeat was, right?
So the English just wanted to be mean to the Americans but be nice to the Canadians? Pull the other one.
Brits already had Canadians just where they wanted them, no need for any special exertions to bring Canada into line.
Americans were a very different story.
Brits wanted something from Americans, something important and were willing to do whatever necessary to get it.
What did they want?
Direct rule, for starters, with British appointed governors, but more important was taxes: Brits wanted, in effect, to collect rent from American colonists.
That's what the whole "no taxation without representation" was all about.
Read the whole list of two dozen+ items in the Declaration of Independence.
Very few, if any, apply to Canadians in the way Americans took them.
Worth noting the population of Canadians in 1775 was circa 50,000 versus nearly 3 million Americans.
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.