alt.war.civil.usa

Grant does not contradict what I said. Grant's excuses for why the
North didn't respond in the same way he had just said the framers
would have responded does not constitute a contradiction--it's merely
excuse-making.

Grant said he believed the framers would have allowed the South to
leave in peace rather than see a war between brothers. That's what he
said. Then he tried to explain away the fact that, obviously, the
Republicans had not responded in the same way.

Grant also said that if any of the original 13 states had sought to
secede, he didn't think anyone would have challenged their right to do
so. That's what he said. Again, his follow-on excuse-making doesn't
change the fact of what he said.

So I was not dishonest, and I did not quote Grant "out of context."
I'm not interested in Grant's excuses. I'm interested in the fact
that he said the framers would have let the South leave in peace and
that no one would have tried to prevent any of the 13 original states
from seceding.

Just because a person supplies excuses after he makes some damning
admissions doesn't make the admissions "out of context."

And Grant's logic is absurd, ., that just because more states were
added, therefore the right of secession ended. What kind of "logic"
is that? The Constitution says that all states covered by the
Constitution have the same rights. So if the original 13 states had
the right to secede, then subsequent states had and have that same
right.

Mike Griffith