“Nonsense, because by July 1776 they were not just de facto at war against the King, they had long since been formally declared in rebellion.
"August 23, 1775, “Proclamation for Suppressing Rebellion and Sedition”". (See your post 1351.)
In response to my statement that the signers of the DOI did not believe they were rebelling, or revolting, or committing treason you cite a proclamation by the King of England saying they were guilty of rebellion, sedition, and treason.
It is not really surprising that you, the titular head of the Lincolnian caucus, would instinctively rely on the King's proclamation to rebut the theory of independent states enshrined in the unanimous Declaration of the 13 united States of America. That is not a rebuke; just an observation.
Why would the founding fathers state plainly, or even imply in their declaration, that they (the founders) were embracing rebellion and treason? They would not and did not.
What you do see in the declaration - and this will surprise you when you read it - is that the founders repeatedly charged the King with gross usurpation of power disqualifying the King from being the ruler of a free people. It was the King, the colonists contended, that had rebelled against the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God.
The colonists wrote - and I agree - that, “In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.” Brother Joe you may disagree with the colonists but this is how they explained the situation on the ground at the time.
Look at what they wrote here: “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.”
And here: “He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.”
And here: “For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States.”
The rough draft of the declaration included this charge: He (King) has incited treasonable insurrections of our fellow citizens with the allurements of forfeiture & confiscation of our property”
This particular charge - which verbalized treason by the King - did not survive the editing process but the implication remained in the declaration - the King's misconduct amounted to treason against the compact between the King and the people.
Rebelling, revolting, and committing treason is not something the founding fathers sought to be identified with - it was something they tagged the King with in their declaration.
Others have noted some of the founding fathers did embrace the word “revolution.” But they did not do it in their declaration.
And if they embraced the word revolution, so what? I see avid Trump supporters wearing shirts proclaiming they are “Deplorables.” This does not mean they actually believe they are deserving of censure or contempt; it is, rather, a clap-back at political opponents who tried, and failed, to intimidate them by name calling. A term of derision sometimes is worn as a badge of honor by the intended victim.
As for Brother Franklin's little joke: gallows humor.