You're confusing morality (which is often subjective--see slave ownership for example) with legality.
They put up a bigger fight than the colonies ever did against England, but King George III was more Reasonable than was Lincoln. He stopped the bloodshed and let those Rebellious states go.
Britain didn't end the war because King George reasonably saw that the colonies were morally right. He ended it because his armies had been defeated, the French were now involved on the American side, and he lost control of parliament and with it the political means to continue fighting.
Really? , and what would they have done had they NOT restrained themselves as you seem to think they did? Should they have killed everyone they conquered?
I'm not saying that the United States should have done anything differently. But you might want to remember Benjamin Franklin said about what would have happened to them if your "reasonable" King George had won. "We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." He knew what was at stake.
Which one were we asserting when we declared that people had a right to dissolve the political bonds?
Britain didn't end the war because King George reasonably saw that the colonies were morally right. He ended it because his armies had been defeated, the French were now involved on the American side, and he lost control of parliament and with it the political means to continue fighting.
Well, had he been Lincoln, he could have simply arrested the disagreeable members of Parliament, Suspended Habeas Corpus, and thrown in Jail anyone who didn't agree with his decision to continue the war.
Beyond that, you overlook the point that members of Parliament saw that the colonies were morally right, and thus withdrew their support for the war. Look up Edmund Burke.
I'm not saying that the United States should have done anything differently. But you might want to remember Benjamin Franklin said about what would have happened to them if your "reasonable" King George had won. "We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." He knew what was at stake.
No one is disputing that what the Colonies did was illegal under English law. The point in question was how they could claim it was illegal under the natural law they asserted in their break with England.
The USA was supposed to respect it's OWN principles of Natural law, not those of England. According to the US Principles of Natural law, every people had a right to separate themselves from a government they no longer wanted.
The Freedom of Association implies a corollary; A Freedom to disassociate. We now have a policy of compulsory association, and it will continue to manifest itself in our current government. Think the "gay marriage" issue won't affect you? They will MAKE you accept it. Abortion in Catholic Hospitals? FORCED to accept it. Illegal immigration? Obamacare? Death Panels? Inflated Dollars? etc. I doubt not that at some point Christianity will be banned.
You won't be allowed to escape it. The financial ruin that comes with reckless states being chained to you? Why you get to share in that too!
Rejecting the principle of escape from an oppressive government will come back to haunt you, I think. Yes, many of the people who did it before were bad people, but the Precedent set in compulsory union will hereafter be used to hurt any good people who try to escape.