Really? It sure looks like one to me:
Whereas George the third, King of Great Britain and Ireland, and elector of Hanover, heretofore intrusted with the exercise of the kingly office in this government, hath endeavoured to prevent, the same into a detestable and insupportable tyranny, by putting his negative on laws the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.....By which several acts of misrule, the government of this country, as formerly exercised under the crown of Great Britain, is TOTALLY DISSOLVED.
followed by
"We therefore, the delegates and representatives of the good people of Virginia, having maturely considered the premises, and viewing with great concern the deplorable conditions to which this once happy country must be reduced, unless some regular, adequate mode of civil polity is speedily adopted, and in compliance with a recommendation of the general Congress, do ordain and declare the future form of government of Virginia to be as followeth:I. The legislative, executive, and judiciary department, shall be separate and distinct, so that neither exercise the powers properly belonging to the other: nor shall any person exercise the powers of rmorc than one of them, at the same time; except that the Justices of the County (courts shall be eligible to either House of Assembly...
In other words, (1) King George has become a tyrant by doing despotic acts X, Y, and Z, (2) because of these acts our government ties to England are hereby disolved, and (3) in their place we are instituting our own government, consisting of an assembly, senate and so forth.
In fact, the key phase in the whole document is, "By which several acts of misrule, the government of this country, as formerly exercised under the crown of Great Britain, is TOTALLY DISSOLVED." This, although rebellious, is not an act declaring independence.
They gave a reason for independence, declared their independence, and set up an independent government. To suggest that an act "totally dissolv[ing]" Virginia's ties to Britain and establishing a new government over the "Commonwealth of Virginia" in place of Britain is not an act of independence is both slothful and absurd. Put another way, capitan, you made an ingnorant and arrogant proclamation. I corrected that act of ignorance by citing an irrefutable historical truth and yet you arrogantly persist in asserting your previous falsehood's validity at all cost and beyond. Why is that, capitan? Is it stubbornness? Stupidity? An inabilty to admit one's own error? An obsessive need to save face? Whatever the case, you've accomplished nothing beyond displaying your own intellectual deficiencies and your own inability to conduct yourself in a reasonable and truthful manner as you attempt to engage in conversations about historical matters of fact.
Concurring bump. I'm getting tired of the obstinacy in the face of fact and reason.
Confute, refute, walk all over his argument in your spiked elenchus shoes -- and he just pops back up somewhere else and posts the exact same damned thing as if it had never come up before. That's just plain dishonest.
Actually, on second thought, I think he's already warned us what he intended to do. His comment about not making our case for us indicates that he intends to proceed like a lawyer or a pol: at the intellectual level of a seminar grad student and the moral level of a used-car salesman.
I think we err in engaging him in the first place, if he has told us he's just going to spew.
Well, two out of three is not too bad, for you. It is clear the Virginians want local autonomy and chaffed under the British appointed governors and officials. With that said, there is no declaration of independence in the document. In fact, when they did declare their independence the next month, they did so as one of the "united colonies."
Sorry, you are over-reaching again.