Declaration of Independence Was 'Illegal,' Grounds for Treason, British Lawyers Say
Published October 20, 2011 FoxNews.com
The Declaration of Independence was “illegal” and “treasonable,” according to a team of British lawyers, the BBC reports.
The assertion was made at a debate in Philadelphia between British and American lawyers over the legitimacy of the United States of America.
At the debate, pitting British barristers against American attorneys, lawyers for the former colonial power argued that America’s Declaration of Independence in 1776 “was not only illegal, but actually treasonable,” according to the BBC.
The lawyers representing the British team decided that the Americans had no legal grounds for secession. "[President Abraham] Lincoln made the case against secession and he was right."
"The grievances listed in the Declaration were too trivial to justify secession," the British lawyers wrote. "The main one -- no taxation without representation -- was no more than a wish on the part of the colonists, to avoid paying for the expense of protecting them against the French during seven years of arduous war and conflict."
The American lawyers countered that the Declaration's validity has been proven by "subsequent independence movements which have been enforced by world opinion as right and just."
At the end of the debate, which took place just a few blocks away from where Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration, a vote was held and American independence was reaffirmed.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/20/declaration-independence-was-illegal-grounds-for-treason-british-lawyers-say/?test=latestnews#ixzz1bL1A25Je
Of course it was illegal.
The prevailing law prior to the revolution was British. The Founding Fathers knew that they were engaging in a violation of British law because the pledged their "lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor" on the Declaration. The knew if they lost they would be tried in the appropriate court, but if they won a new nation would be founded. The day they fired the first shot, either literal or figurative, they knew that the status of the current law was against them. But they were willing to bear the penalty if they lost. And at that time the penalty they were willing to face was the death penalty.
This is a no-brainer. BY DEFINITION it is the same in ANY revolution or coup. The insugents, rebels, or what ever you call them are risking their lives or freedom on establishing a new regime.
The same was true in France, Russia, or Hitler's Beer Hall Putsch.
The real question isn't "Is this illegal under current law?" It always is. The better question is "Will we lead to a better society as a result of our revolution?"
Published October 20, 2011 FoxNews.com
The Declaration of Independence was “illegal” and “treasonable,” according to a team of British lawyers, the BBC reports.
The assertion was made at a debate in Philadelphia between British and American lawyers over the legitimacy of the United States of America.
At the debate, pitting British barristers against American attorneys, lawyers for the former colonial power argued that America’s Declaration of Independence in 1776 “was not only illegal, but actually treasonable,” according to the BBC.
The lawyers representing the British team decided that the Americans had no legal grounds for secession. "[President Abraham] Lincoln made the case against secession and he was right."
"The grievances listed in the Declaration were too trivial to justify secession," the British lawyers wrote. "The main one -- no taxation without representation -- was no more than a wish on the part of the colonists, to avoid paying for the expense of protecting them against the French during seven years of arduous war and conflict."
The American lawyers countered that the Declaration's validity has been proven by "subsequent independence movements which have been enforced by world opinion as right and just."
At the end of the debate, which took place just a few blocks away from where Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration, a vote was held and American independence was reaffirmed.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/20/declaration-independence-was-illegal-grounds-for-treason-british-lawyers-say/?test=latestnews#ixzz1bL1A25Je
The victors always get to rewrite the rule book, not to mention the history books.
Can you imagine how the history books would read if Germany had been the victor in WWII or if the South had won the Civil War. It would probably be renamed "The War of Northern Aggression" or even the Confederacy's "Revolutionary War" against the USA.
It is true to a large extent that the victor writes history. However, sometimes the loser also agrees with the victor's evaluation. There are very few Germans who would say that Germany was "right." Likewise, there are very few Japanese express the view that Japan was correct in starting the war.
Indeed, getting back to the OP topic, apart from academic debates of historical interest, vere few people in England would say that it was bad that the U.S. gained it's independence. (Especially after WW II.)
Of course, a wining Germany would have written different books. But it is interesting that there is no one in "losing" Germany, where there is a fair amount of freedom of speech, that claims the invasion of Poland was authorized. (There are laws in Germany against denying the Holocaust and a few other things, but they would not cover a defense of the invasion of Poland.)
Can you imagine how the history books would read if Germany had been the victor in WWII or if the South had won the Civil War. It would probably be renamed "The War of Northern Aggression" or even the Confederacy's "Revolutionary War" against the USA.
They would have grown up with a completely different perspective as their history books would have been written by the Nazi party. Which bring me back to my point which is that the winners, or maybe more accurately "the winning side" gets to write the history books.
Again, if "we" had lost our revolutionary war, our "founding fathers" would be referred to as those failed treasonous revolutionaries of the 18th century, and King George III would have gone down as the "Savior of the empire", similar to Abraham Lincoln in our own history is known as the "Savior of the Union"
Your argument that the loser often times agrees with the victor only applies because the loser lost, If the Japanese had defeated us in WWII they would most likely celebrate the event as "The glorious conquest of their western empire" and it would be very unlikely that the average Japanese citizen would think of it in any other terms.
The Japanese are notorious for their refusal to teach their children about Japanese attrocities during the war. Their history books are sanitized. The Chinese and Koreans have expressed outrage about it for years.
I know the Japanese refuse to teach the attrocities they committed.
However, my point was that they do not justify Pearl Harbor.
Likewise, while they won't discuss it in school, they don't try to say they were right in the way they treated those groups.
Rather than write their version, the OP, they just have silence in certain areas.
I can only imagine how their history books would read if they had actually won the war.
The attack on Pearl Harbor would be glorified and the attackers regaled as heroes if Japan would have won. As it stands, they just try not to talk about it, not that I blame them. Winning is everything.
The Southern State had a legal right to withdraw from the Union at the time the succeded. Texas had it written in it's Union Admision when they joined that they could withdraw from the Union and the Federal gov accepted the clause.
.. of course if we lost the Revolutionary War, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington et al would be tried as traitors. Good Post.
-- Modified on 10/20/2011 7:52:42 PM
I wouldn't mind bombing the blue hell out of them, and then invading and occupying them and declaring them the 51st state. With a special exemption: They get no representation in Congress. And oh yeh, we get to ban the consumption of tea and replace it with coca-cola, and charge a 50% tax per glass. Fucking limeys.
"Heblew?" LOL! That's a new one on me! Kinda like a gay, Jewish version of mangina. Funny, actually. But watch out. You may turn your "love" for BP into another version of Gambler vs. liorr, mr.nt vs. Pri and me, NathanButtFuck vs. Pri, Everybody vs. mrng, etc., etc. Don't make me do my Rodney King immitation!
and now that I used the word crosses, BigPapasan will again brand me as an anti-semite. Maybe I should have said we all have our Star of Davids to bear. I gotta stop watching Dave Chappelle. He is the reason for my racism. I especially loved the episode where he is the blind KKK leader.
I don't recall who it was, but he said racial, ethnic or religious prejudice is so silly because there are so many good reasons to hate people on an individual basis. Kinda like the P&R Board.
Phil is right, of course it was illegal at the outset and charges of treason were made at the time. But once we won the war, the peace treaty recognized the US as legitimate and the original verbiage was moot.
Why anyone would waste their time debating all this is beyond me.
Certainly true but a vast understatement.
Five signers of the DoI were captured, tortured and executed. Twelve had their homes burned. The list goes on.
BTW, the revolution didn't truly end until the War of 1812. True, the Treaty of Paris ceded the land east of the Mississippi and GB withdrew forces from "the colonies", but it continued to side with the Native Americans supressing westward movement. GB was a thorn in our side posting a variety of continual insults until full hostilities finally broke out again 30 years later when the score was finally settled.