Replies

I disagree with this interpretation. The American colonists rebelled, pure and simple. There was no pretense that it was somehow permitted to do so under the existing law. A rebellion can be perceived as morally just or unjust, and a great deal depends on which side of it you find yourself, but the rebellion itself is by its nature, supra-legal. It is, by definition, a rejection of the law, or at least aspects of it.

As has been said on these threads many times, the Founding Fathers were under no illusion that their actions were legal, and they didn't whine that the British had no legal right to oppose them.

Bubba Ho_Tep: "I disagree with this interpretation.
The American colonists rebelled, pure and simple.
There was no pretense that it was somehow permitted to do so under the existing law."

First, remember, we're talking about Massachusetts in April 1774, a time when no serious rebellion had happened amongst the colony's 300,000+ citizens, only some protests by a hundred activists, the Boston Tea Party.
And yet Parliament used that excuse to revoke the 1691 Charter, punishing all 300,000+ Massachusetts citizens.
So, they felt betrayed and abused by British bad-faith, and essentially refused to recognize Parliament's authority.
Without a working mutual compact acknowledging British legitimacy, Brits must impose it by military force.
Now Rebellion begins in earnest.

Point is, most Massachusetts citizens did not feel they deserved to be mistreated by Britain, and that was root cause of their resistance.

Similarly, in early 1861 declarations of secession by Deep South Fire Eaters came out of the blue for most Americans, who didn't think they deserved to have their country split apart.
When those declarations were followed by seizures and military assault on Federal properties, and threats against Washington DC itself, northerners felt that was too much to accept, and became willing to fight for their Union.

So, at least in my mind, the comparison of 1775 Brits assaulting Lexington & Concord and 1861 Confederates assaulting Fort Sumter seems precise, exact.

Of course, our Lost Causers always jump straight over this part, preferring to focus their attention on, naturally, Uncle Billy Sherman's March to the Sea, just as if that came straight out of the blue, with no previous history to explain it.
In their minds, the Civil War began with Sherman's March, and ended with Pickett's Charge in Gettysburg -- a noble cause, brilliantly fought against overwhelming odds and evil Northern men who were trying to impose Communism on good Southerners only devoted to our Constitution, limited government and private enterprise.

I mean, isn't that a great myth?
You really couldn't beat it, if only even a word of it were true.

Do you disagree?