4 ms·

Laws make things legal or illegal. They don't make things right or wrong. The Declaration of Independence was illegal, and the men who signed it were wanted dea

by 16s 13y ago

Laws make things legal or illegal. They don't make things right or wrong. The Declaration of Independence was illegal, and the men who signed it were wanted dead or alive, but it was the right thing to do.

quantumpotato_ 13y ago
the men who signed it were wanted dead or alive and it was the right thing to do Another's hatred does not condemn us.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  That said, other things being equal, it's better not to be hated.
marcelsalathe 13y ago
Re D of I: I'm honestly curious: is that true? Evidence?
- aeosynth 13y ago
  Evidence: the American Revolutionary War. > We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. - Benjamin Franklin
- RyanMcGreal 13y ago
  The assumption is that Britain regarded it as illegal in the same way that the USA would regard it as illegal if, say, the state of Texas was to declare independence today. That said, it's apparently a hot area of debate among people who study law: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15345511 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15345511
  - marcelsalathe 13y ago
    Really interesting. Thanks for the link.
  - prewett 13y ago
    Texas is the only state that joined by treaty as an independent county, so it seems reasonable that Texas could maybe repudiate that treaty and leave. I think the example would have been better if they had picked one of the other 49 states, which were created from US territories and were part of the US before they were states. Clearly it is not legal for them to leave; there was even a big war fought to decide that question. On the other hand apparently the Supreme Court disagrees with me [1], and only 33% of people polled think that Texas can secede [2]. [1] http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2012/11/constitution-check-can-texas-get-constitutional-permission-to-leave-the-union/ http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2012/11/constitution-chec... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_secession_movements http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_secession_movements
    - ekianjo 13y ago
      This is not what I have read before about the US constitution. It was very clear at the time the constitution was ratified by the States that they would keep their sovereignty and therefore have a right to secede. Why would it be otherwise, in a country that fought for its independence in the first place? http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/secession-its-constitutional/ http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/secession-its-constitutional/ It's not because there was the Civil War that the Civil War outcome was Lawful. The Southern States had the right to secede and that right was not recognized by Lincoln.
      - RyanMcGreal 13y ago
        At the risk of making an ad hominem attack, I seriously wouldn't take an op-ed in WND as a credible analysis of US Constitutional law.
        ekianjo 13y ago
        Well that's what I could find in 5 mins online, but I'm sure there are other, better articles out there about that.
    - RyanMcGreal 13y ago
      Heh, that's what I get for picking a state out of a hat. Thanks for the extra detail on how Texas joined the union!
- alexqgb 13y ago
  Google, damnit. I mean, this isn't some obscure detail you're "curious" about. It's the founding event in US history.
  - marcelsalathe 13y ago
    Jeez, take a break. No need to swear. I did google it but couldn't find much.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- cconroy 13y ago
  Relative illegality with respect to GB. "Natural laws," self-evident truths transcend this. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_III_of_the_United_Kingdom#American_War_of_Independence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_III_of_the_United_Kingdo...
  - cma 13y ago
    The claimef violations of self evident "truths" in the declaration of independence include the right to commit genocide of the native population: " 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." Britain wasn't allowing the colonies to expand westward, and the Patriots were pissed.
- ErikAugust 13y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War Notice the years this war was waged. The British were definitely not cool with the American colony seceding.
- Spooky23 13y ago
  At a minimum, all of the signers pf the Declaration were guilty of sedition, and most likely treason as well. Sedition was a common law offense, and treason was defined as an affront to the monarch. Either would have sent most of the signers to the gallows.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

by 16s 13y ago

quantumpotato_ 13y ago

the men who signed it were wanted dead or alive and it was the right thing to do Another's hatred does not condemn us.

dllthomas 13y ago
That said, other things being equal, it's better not to be hated.

marcelsalathe 13y ago

Re D of I: I'm honestly curious: is that true? Evidence?

aeosynth 13y ago
Evidence: the American Revolutionary War. > We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. - Benjamin Franklin
RyanMcGreal 13y ago
The assumption is that Britain regarded it as illegal in the same way that the USA would regard it as illegal if, say, the state of Texas was to declare independence today. That said, it's apparently a hot area of debate among people who study law: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15345511 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15345511
- marcelsalathe 13y ago
  Really interesting. Thanks for the link.
- prewett 13y ago
  Texas is the only state that joined by treaty as an independent county, so it seems reasonable that Texas could maybe repudiate that treaty and leave. I think the example would have been better if they had picked one of the other 49 states, which were created from US territories and were part of the US before they were states. Clearly it is not legal for them to leave; there was even a big war fought to decide that question. On the other hand apparently the Supreme Court disagrees with me [1], and only 33% of people polled think that Texas can secede [2]. [1] http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2012/11/constitution-check-can-texas-get-constitutional-permission-to-leave-the-union/ http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2012/11/constitution-chec... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_secession_movements http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_secession_movements
  - ekianjo 13y ago
    This is not what I have read before about the US constitution. It was very clear at the time the constitution was ratified by the States that they would keep their sovereignty and therefore have a right to secede. Why would it be otherwise, in a country that fought for its independence in the first place? http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/secession-its-constitutional/ http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/secession-its-constitutional/ It's not because there was the Civil War that the Civil War outcome was Lawful. The Southern States had the right to secede and that right was not recognized by Lincoln.
    - RyanMcGreal 13y ago
      At the risk of making an ad hominem attack, I seriously wouldn't take an op-ed in WND as a credible analysis of US Constitutional law.
      - ekianjo 13y ago
        Well that's what I could find in 5 mins online, but I'm sure there are other, better articles out there about that.
  - RyanMcGreal 13y ago
    Heh, that's what I get for picking a state out of a hat. Thanks for the extra detail on how Texas joined the union!
alexqgb 13y ago
Google, damnit. I mean, this isn't some obscure detail you're "curious" about. It's the founding event in US history.
- marcelsalathe 13y ago
  Jeez, take a break. No need to swear. I did google it but couldn't find much.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
cconroy 13y ago
Relative illegality with respect to GB. "Natural laws," self-evident truths transcend this. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_III_of_the_United_Kingdom#American_War_of_Independence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_III_of_the_United_Kingdo...
- cma 13y ago
  The claimef violations of self evident "truths" in the declaration of independence include the right to commit genocide of the native population: " 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." Britain wasn't allowing the colonies to expand westward, and the Patriots were pissed.
ErikAugust 13y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War Notice the years this war was waged. The British were definitely not cool with the American colony seceding.
Spooky23 13y ago
At a minimum, all of the signers pf the Declaration were guilty of sedition, and most likely treason as well. Sedition was a common law offense, and treason was defined as an affront to the monarch. Either would have sent most of the signers to the gallows.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]