I've gotten another jury summons

[Ben Kenobi]

I just think it's funny that he's saying that I can't possible be truly knowledgeable about something unless I directly experienced it. Not what I would expect from a history major.

That was wholly your point, that just because someone lived through the period makes them an expert on things that happened then.

[Ben Kenobi]

He doesn't adhere to any consistent philosophical principles, just whatever is convenient for the argument he is currently engaged in, in this case he's attempting to defend the reputation of the South from Yankee slander because he's a wannabe Southerner. Ben is best understood as having factional loyalties such as being Catholic, a wannabe Texan, and loyal to the queen of Britain.

Which area tended to be more loyalist during the Revolutionary war? Boston or Charles-town, South Carolina?

I think it's odd that the Yankees who had engaged in revolution and derived their authority through revolution sought to suppress the South.

Yes, I side with the South, and with the Queen, as her subject and as a Catholic.

I also believe that the English Monarchy originated as Catholic (which is a historical fact), and that Texas has substantial Catholic heritage going back centuries. I can see why people would be confused by it - but...

Is it any more odd than being a Catholic in British Columbia (a very Protestant area, governed by the Church of England?)

Most Catholics are monarchist. The question is which monarch. In short, I see the ideals of loyalty to the Pope and to the King of England and to the South and Texas as congruent with each other, even if they are presently incongruent due to historical aberrations.

Texas has been ruled by kings before. They rebelled, not from a King, but from an elected dictator - Santa Anna.

[Ban Kenobi]

Rah never claimed to be an "expert". Claiming to have basic knowledge of things that happened during your lifetime isn't unreasonable.

[Ban Kenobi]

Which area tended to be more loyalist during the Revolutionary war? Boston or Charles-town, South Carolina?

South Carolina was somewhat less pro-independence but still chose independence.

I think it's odd that the Yankees who had engaged in revolution and derived their authority through revolution sought to suppress the South.

Irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Yes, I side with the South, and with the Queen, as her subject and as a Catholic.

Contradictory. The South certainly didn't restore the monarchy when it declared independence. North or South, Americans are not monarchists. Also, it's weird that a devout Catholic shows such adulation to the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

I also believe that the English Monarchy originated as Catholic (which is a historical fact), and that Texas has substantial Catholic heritage going back centuries. I can see why people would be confused by it - but...

Is it any more odd than being a Catholic in British Columbia (a very Protestant area, governed by the Church of England?)

Most Catholics are monarchist. The question is which monarch.

The issue isn't really Catholicism, since religious freedom is a foundational principle of both the US and Texas, but rather that you're a monarchist.

[Ben Kenobi]

]Rah never claimed to be an "expert". Claiming to have basic knowledge of things that happened during your lifetime isn't unreasonable

Rah subsequently admitted that his knowledge of the South and segregation in the Sixties comes from textbooks, which is no different from mine.

[Ban Kenobi]

Rah subsequently admitted that his knowledge of the South and segregation in the Sixties comes from textbooks, which is no different from mine.

His only mention of "textbooks" was:

And yes I think my experience with the civil rights movement is more than yours since I actually lived through the 60's.
The town I grew up in was an example case in textbooks about how blacks were denied housing, when I was younger. I witnessed the marches, and then studied them years later at college.
It was not a proud moment for out town. I actually heard Malcolm X speak in person. But I guess none of that is actual experience.

It looks like you misremembered what rah said.

[Ben Kenobi]

South Carolina was somewhat less pro-independence but still chose independence.

South Carolina had significant numbers of loyalists, and supplied the forces of the King, willingly. Britain signed peace, and chose to give up the 13 colonies because they felt that their interests were better served to have a potential ally for trade than to keep pressing on.

Could Britain have won had they pursued their goal as fiercely as they did against Napoleon? Absolutely. Did they see the 13 colonies as worthwhile for this effort? No. In the end - the big loser was France as Britain stayed close to the United States. Had the war continued, this may have had a different outcome.

I think it's odd that the Yankees who had engaged in revolution and derived their authority through revolution sought to suppress the South. Irrelevant to the issue at hand.

If your cause is 'freedom', then there's no justification to keep the South in the Union if they wish to leave. The cause for Lincoln was no different than for King George. The difference is that Lincoln suspended Habeaus Corpus, while George did not.

The South certainly didn't restore the monarchy when it declared independence.

Again - they aren't majority Catholic either. Look at their flag. Scotch-Irish cross.

North or South, Americans are not monarchists.

Texans are unique in not having ever rebelled from a monarch but from an elected dictator who abrogated the Mexican constitution, despite being ruled by the French and Spanish kings (although not the English King). They have only been ruled by Catholic kings, and thus have little connection with the present English monarchy.

Recall what I said about the origins of the Monarchy and my belief that they have strayed from their roots.

Also, it's weird that a devout Catholic shows such adulation to the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

It would be if I had distaste for Bonnie Prince Charlie.

The issue isn't really Catholicism, since religious freedom is a foundational principle of both the US and Texas, but rather that you're a monarchist.

Catholicism has no issue with Constitutional monarchy. We prefer it to republicanism. Go back through the records. Republicanism has generally been opposed by the Catholic church for centuries.

[Ben Kenobi]

It looks like you misremembered what rah said.

It's good to see you continue to lie.

The civil rights movement was quite dominant in the papers and in our text books in the 60's when I was in school. We studied it often

Post 53.

[Ban Kenobi]

South Carolina had significant numbers of loyalists, and supplied the forces of the King, willingly. Britain signed peace, and chose to give up the 13 colonies because they felt that their interests were better served to have a potential ally for trade than to keep pressing on.

Could Britain have won had they pursued their goal as fiercely as they did against Napoleon? Absolutely. Did they see the 13 colonies as worthwhile for this effort? No. In the end - the big loser was France as Britain stayed close to the United States. Had the war continued, this may have had a different outcome.

South Carolina still chose independence. Facts are stubborn things. The US didn't stay particularly close to Britain either. You don't declare war on a country that you consider an ally.

If your cause is 'freedom', then there's no justification to keep the South in the Union if they wish to leave. The cause for Lincoln was no different than for King George. The difference is that Lincoln suspended Habeaus Corpus, while George did not.

This doesn't help your claim that Southerners are actually monarchists.

Again - they aren't majority Catholic either. Look at their flag. Scotch-Irish cross.

Okay...?

Texans are unique in not having ever rebelled from a monarch but from an elected dictator who abrogated the Mexican constitution, despite being ruled by the French and Spanish kings (although not the English King). They have only been ruled by Catholic kings, and thus have little connection with the present English monarchy.

Recall what I said about the origins of the Monarchy and my belief that they have strayed from their roots.

Of course Texas has no connection to the present English monarchy. That's what makes it so bizarre for a wannabe Texan to claim to be loyal to it.

Catholicism has no issue with Constitutional monarchy. We prefer it to republicanism. Go back through the records. Republicanism has generally been opposed by the Catholic church for centuries.

Republicanism has had near universal support among Americans for the last two centuries. That includes American Catholics. That's the real issue with a wannabe Texan, wannabe American saying he's a monarchist. Monarchy is unamerican.

[Ban Kenobi]

It's good to see you continue to lie.



Post 53.

So you deleted "the papers" and implied that rah's sole source of knowledge was the textbooks? And you're accusing others of lying?

[Ben Kenobi]

South Carolina still chose independence. Facts are stubborn things. The US didn't stay particularly close to Britain either. You don't declare war on a country that you consider an ally.

Interestingly enough, Canada is still the US' largest trading partner. As Britain and the Empire was through the 50s. I'd be hard pressed to find a time when the number one trading partner of the US wasn't Britain or part of the Empire.

The war of 1812, was just a skirmish - Britain was far more heavily involved in the Peninsular war at the time.

This doesn't help your claim that Southerners are actually monarchists.

Uh, yes it does, given as they sided with George during the Revolutionary war, and sided against Yankee republicanism both times. I thought your argument was that the South favored authoritarianism.

Scotch-Irish cross. Okay...?

Flags have meaning. They Kept the White and the Blue cross of St. Patrick and St. Andrew. The largest demographic in the south was Scotch-Irish.

Of course Texas has no connection to the present English monarchy. That's what makes it so bizarre for a wannabe Texan to claim to be loyal to it.

My loyalty is to the Crown, less so to the present dynasty. The Crown predates the Hanoverians. Elizabeth derives her authority through the Crown and through the Act of Settlement, by which the Crown was vested by Parliament on the descendents of Electress Sophia. At present there are still 2 superior lines of descent. Both Catholic.

Eventually the Act of Settlement will be repealed and Catholics will be able to come to the throne again.

Republicanism has had near universal support among Americans for the last two centuries. That includes American Catholics. That's the real issue with a wannabe Texan, wannabe American saying he's a monarchist. Monarchy is unamerican.

Texas is one of two states where you'll see a substantial proportion of non-Yankee Catholics as a percentage of the population. It's unsurprising that when most Americans are Protestant that you'd see support for Republicanism here. You also don't have the animosity here towards the English Crown.

[Ban Kenobi]

Interestingly enough, Canada is still the US' largest trading partner. As Britain and the Empire was through the 50s. I'd be hard pressed to find a time when the number one trading partner wasn't Britain or part of the Empire.

The war of 1812, was just a skirmish - Britain was far more heavily involved in the Peninsular war at the time.





If your cause is 'freedom', then there's no justification to keep the South in the Union if they wish to leave. The cause for Lincoln was no different than for King George. The difference is that Lincoln suspended Habeaus Corpus, while George did not. This doesn't help your claim that Southerners are actually monarchists.





Again - they aren't majority Catholic either. Look at their flag. Scotch-Irish cross. Okay...?





Texans are unique in not having ever rebelled from a monarch but from an elected dictator who abrogated the Mexican constitution, despite being ruled by the French and Spanish kings (although not the English King). They have only been ruled by Catholic kings, and thus have little connection with the present English monarchy.

Recall what I said about the origins of the Monarchy and my belief that they have strayed from their roots. Of course Texas has no connection to the present English monarchy. That's what makes it so bizarre for a wannabe Texan to claim to be loyal to it.





Catholicism has no issue with Constitutional monarchy. We prefer it to republicanism. Go back through the records. Republicanism has generally been opposed by the Catholic church for centuries. Republicanism has had near universal support among Americans for the last two centuries. That includes American Catholics. That's the real issue with a wannabe Texan, wannabe American saying he's a monarchist. Monarchy is unamerican.

Learn to use the "reply with quote" feature.

[Ben Kenobi]

And you're accusing others of lying

You said, "he only mentioned textbooks" in one post. You were wrong. Again.

[Ben Kenobi]

Learn to use the "reply with quote" feature.

Easier (and faster), to type out all the tags.

[Ban Kenobi]

You said, "he only mentioned textbooks" in one post. You were wrong. Again.

I was wrong. However, in the process of proving me wrong you haven't made yourself appear honest.