|
|
 Up |
|
  |
Author: Mike GriffithMike Griffith Date: May 17, 2008 13:29
Note: “RW” stands for Revolutionary War; “CW” stands for Civil War.
1. Which side was willing to let the other side live under a
government of its own choosing?
RW: The Americans
CW: The South
2. Which side wanted to force the other side to live under a
government that it had made clear it no longer wished to live under?
RW: The British
CW: The North
3. Which side rejected the idea that the people of a state have a
natural right to peacefully withdraw their state from the national
government?
RW: The British
CW: The North
Useful Quotes:
Thomas Paine:
"Every thing that is right or natural pleads for separation. . . . A
government of our own is our natural right." (Common Sense,
Philadelphia: W. & T. Bradford, 1776, III:19, 50, emphasis added)
|
| Show full article (5.62Kb) |
|
| | 129 Comments |
|
|
Author: deemsbilldeemsbill Date: May 17, 2008 13:40
>
> Useful Quotes:
>
> Thomas Paine:
>
> "Every thing that is right or natural pleads for separation. . . . A
> government of our own is our natural right." (Common Sense,
> Philadelphia: W. & T. Bradford, 1776, III:19, 50, emphasis added)
>
> Richard Henry Lee:
>
> "Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be,
> free and independent States, that they are absolved from all
> allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection
> between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be,
> totally dissolved." (Resolution of Richard Henry Lee, Journals of the
> Continental Congress, June 7, 1776)
>
> This resolution was later included nearly verbatim in the Declaration
> of Independence: ...
|
| Show full article (1.90Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: scribe7716scribe7716 Date: May 17, 2008 15:42
On May 17, 6:29 am, Mike Griffith gmail.com>
wrote:> Note: “RW” stands for Revolutionary War; “CW” stands for Civil War.
>
> 1. Which side...
o had largely controlled the government of the U.S. since its
founding?
The south.
o refused to accept the overcome of a fair and honest election in
which it had fully participated?
The south.
o demanded slavery be allowed in all U.S. territories as a condition
of staying in the Union?
The south.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Mike GriffithMike Griffith Date: May 17, 2008 19:11
On May 17, 9:42 am, scribe7716 aol.com> wrote:> On May 17, 6:29 am, Mike Griffith gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>> Note: “RW” stands for Revolutionary War; “CW” stands for Civil War.
>
>> 1. Which side...
>
> o had largely controlled the government of the U.S. since its
> founding?
>
> The south.
> o refused to accept the overcome of a fair and honest election in
> which it had fully participated?
>
> The south.
|
| Show full article (1.94Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Mike GriffithMike Griffith Date: May 17, 2008 23:13
On May 17, 7:40 am, "deemsb...@ aol.com" aol.com> wrote:
The British made a similar argument against the American Patriots.
Using your logic, we should wish the British had won; and we should
say the British we're on the side of morality and liberty, not the
Patriots. It's easy to demagogue this issue and to ignore the
historical context in which these events occurred, which is exactly
what you're doing.
Let's also keep in mind that the New England states were deeply
involved in the slave trade--they made huge amounts of money from the
slave trade. Nearly all American slave ships were owned by Northern
businesses and operated from Northern ports, especially from Boston,
Massachusetts, and from Bristol and Newport, Rhode Island. Some
sources:
|
| Show full article (1.34Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Ray O'HaraRay O'Hara Date: May 18, 2008 00:40
The British made a similar argument against the American Patriots.
Using your logic, we should wish the British had won; and we should
say the British we're on the side of morality and liberty, not the
Patriots. It's easy to demagogue this issue and to ignore the
historical context in which these events occurred, which is exactly
what you're doing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
yes its easy to demagogue as you consistantly show us.
|
| Show full article (1.99Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: deemsbilldeemsbill Date: May 18, 2008 02:56
On May 17, 5:13 pm, Mike Griffith gmail.com>
wrote:> On May 17, 7:40 am, "deemsb...@ aol.com" aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> Let's compare:
>
>
>> You should be so proud.
>
> The British made a similar argument against the American Patriots.
> Using your logic, we should wish the British had won; and we should
> say the British we're on the side of morality and liberty, not the
> Patriots. It's easy to demagogue this issue and to ignore the
> historical context in which these events occurred, which is exactly
> what you're doing.
>
> Let's also keep in mind that the New England states were deeply ...
|
| Show full article (1.66Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Mike GriffithMike Griffith Date: May 18, 2008 14:26
On May 17, 6:40 pm, "Ray O'Hara" rcn.com> wrote:>
> some ship owners were involved in the slave trade, "new england" wasn't. but
> ship owners in every major port were in it.
> but when the slave trade was banned they stopped.
You didn't even bother to read the links I provided, did you? It's
quite apparent that you won't allow yourself to read anything that may
challenge your myths.
As is well known to anyone who has seriously studied the subject, the
New England states made large sums of money from the slave trade.
Massachusetts and Rhode Island's governments, for example, jealously
protected their slave trade interests. Also, when the issue of the
slave trade came up at the constitutional convention, the New England
states strongly opposed an immediate ban on the trade.
Mike Griffith
Real Issues Home Page
http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/
http://ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Mike GriffithMike Griffith Date: May 18, 2008 14:30
On May 17, 8:56 pm, "deemsb...@ aol.com" aol.com> wrote:>
>> Far, far more slaves died on Northern slave ships than ever died of
>> abuse on Southern plantations. I trust you're familiar with the
>> horrific, brutal conditions that existed on most slave ships.
>
>
> Which wasn't the issue I was addressing.
Read: You don't want to be bothered by facts that show the hypocrisy
and demagoguery in your demonization of the South.
> Secession occurred because
> some people wanted to keep other people as property. They saw this
> "right" as threatened by Lincoln's election.
This is a distorted, incomplete characterization, to put it mildly.
The Confederacy was moving toward ending slavery by late 1864. Some
of the strongest opponents of secession were slaveholders. Some of
the strongest Unionists during the war were slaveholders.
|
| Show full article (1.28Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: hampshireboyhampshireboy Date: May 18, 2008 15:09
> The Confederacy was moving toward ending slavery by late 1864.
Wow! I didn't know that! Could you please point me to sources where
I can learn more about this? Thanks! Mark
On May 18, 5:30 am, Mike Griffith gmail.com>
wrote:> On May 17, 8:56 pm, "deemsb...@ aol.com" aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>> Far, far more slaves died on Northern slave ships...
|
| Show full article (1.59Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
