Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Dordak_the_Lost

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
31
Historical Discussion / Re: False histories. What irks you the most?
« on: February 11, 2013, 07:33:28 pm »
Back to the 'revolution'. Don't forget that 1/5 of the people actually sided with the king, and many were neutral.

Of course. Luckily, we had Mel Gibson and Heath Ledger there to win the war for us all by themselves. XD (Movie reference! wooo!)

I actually had at least two relatives that fought for the British. One was a grenadier from Wiltshire and another guy who I need to do more research on. I think he was a colonist that stayed loyal. I also had 2 or 3 soldiers who fought against the British in my family.

32
Historical Discussion / Re: False histories. What irks you the most?
« on: February 11, 2013, 04:15:38 pm »
You also can't forget that the colonists didn't just sit there and watch the war. They did a lot of fighting too. Just throwing that out there.  ;D

33
Historical Discussion / Re: False histories. What irks you the most?
« on: February 11, 2013, 12:01:04 am »
Ok time to get back on topic :)

Lee's surrender at Appomattox.

Just a few things people often forget or get wrong:

1. Lee's surrender didn't end the war. (It was the beginning of the end though.)
2. The surrender was preceded by a battle.


34
Historical Discussion / Re: False histories. What irks you the most?
« on: February 10, 2013, 11:35:41 pm »
Seems to be relevant to the conversation.
That the British were tyrannical rulers, and the U.S were just fighters of Freedom.
It was really like this:
King George invites the colonists for dinner at a restaurant, he has been paying the bills everytime for a past many years. He then asks them to pay for once, they insist they had only had a salad and a glass of water, although there was much expensive food left uneaten by them. They then throw over the table, storm out the room, and declare a revolution against tyranny.
Yep, tyrannical rulers indeed. It's terrible when you want your subjects to pay for themselves once in a while!

Edit: While you were typing, two new replies have been posted.

It's a bit more complicated than that.... just a bit.

35
Historical Discussion / Re: False histories. What irks you the most?
« on: February 10, 2013, 11:32:08 pm »
Too much politics.  :P

I agree. To change the subject randomly... is that Tom Hanks in a napoleonic uniform in your signature? Or someone that looks like him?

36
Historical Discussion / Re: False histories. What irks you the most?
« on: February 10, 2013, 11:16:59 pm »
Well, in their eyes, it wasn't equal.

I think they were more angry with the result of the presidential election which is an entirely different branch of government. (Executive.) Congress is the Legislative branch of our government.

37
Historical Discussion / Re: False histories. What irks you the most?
« on: February 10, 2013, 11:09:13 pm »
HA!

Tell that to 95% of the British people IN britain.

lol That's their problem. Not ours. :P

HA! Same goes for the southerns.

How do you get to that conclusion? They were(and are) represented in Congress equally. That is how our government is designed. There is no way they couldn't be represented. Every state gets two senators in the senate and a bunch of representatives in the House of Representatives based on their population size.

38
Historical Discussion / Re: False histories. What irks you the most?
« on: February 10, 2013, 11:04:00 pm »
HA!

Tell that to 95% of the British people IN britain.

lol That's their problem. Not ours. :P

39
Historical Discussion / Re: False histories. What irks you the most?
« on: February 10, 2013, 10:57:55 pm »
Where does it say the colonials had a right to be represented in the British government?

The fact that they were British citizens.

40
Historical Discussion / Re: False histories. What irks you the most?
« on: February 10, 2013, 10:50:12 pm »
It's not about their reasons. It's about the right to leave. The colonies had no right to leave and make their own government - they were UK property.

We had every right to leave.

England had violated our basic rights which gives us the right to leave.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Translation: when your basic rights are violated, you have the right and duty to overthrow or change your government. England had repeatedly violated the colonists rights. Therefore, they had every right to leave.

The south never had such serious violations against them.

If you are referring to "taxation without representation", it's hardly a "violation of basic rights". Heck, by the definition you gave, black people would have been morally right to overthrow the government well into the 60's.

Read the declaration. There is a long list of violations. Not just taxation related ones.

In the 60s, they tried peaceful ways before trying to overthrow the government. Thankfully, they were successful and didn't have to overthrow anything. They had the right to try though. I think there were groups who wanted to as well.

41
Historical Discussion / Re: False histories. What irks you the most?
« on: February 10, 2013, 10:45:15 pm »
The south held slavery as a basic right, to name one thing.

And there were no plans to abolish slavery. But slavery is not a basic right. Basic rights are the ones written in the Bill of Rights. None of their basic rights had been violated. (That I can think of off the top of my head)

42
Historical Discussion / Re: False histories. What irks you the most?
« on: February 10, 2013, 10:28:41 pm »
It's not about their reasons. It's about the right to leave. The colonies had no right to leave and make their own government - they were UK property.

We had every right to leave.

England had violated our basic rights which gives us the right to leave.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Translation: when your basic rights are violated, you have the right and duty to overthrow or change your government. England had repeatedly violated the colonists rights. Therefore, they had every right to leave.

The south never had such serious violations against them.

43
Historical Discussion / Re: False histories. What irks you the most?
« on: February 10, 2013, 10:22:38 pm »
My point is, the colonies declaring independence was very different than when the south seceded. The colonies tried everything before resorting to declaring independence. The south was basically unhappy that Lincoln had won the election and decided to leave.(I know there were more reasons than that.) The colonies had put up with years of stuff like:

Spoiler
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
[close]

The US government never did such serious offenses towards the south.

"In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."

44
Historical Discussion / Re: False histories. What irks you the most?
« on: February 10, 2013, 10:20:28 pm »
Then they shouldn't have signed the Constitution.

45
Historical Discussion / Re: False histories. What irks you the most?
« on: February 10, 2013, 10:17:29 pm »
So, they aren't allowed to leave and set up their own country? Even though they joined the union voluntary?

The declaration, somewhere, says that it's a peoples privilege to abandon a ruler which does not represent their interest.

There's been a lot of debates on that. Some say the wording of the Constitution makes secession illegal. Nowhere in the Constitution is it written that a state may secede. Read the federalist papers.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6