Replies

The Declaration of Independence remains the strongest brief ever written in support of ~~secession~~ revolution.

Fixed it for you.

Revolution means "to turn", or "to rotate."

In civic terms, it normally means the rulers are thrown out, and new rulers take their place, much like Napoleon took the place of Louis XVI. Like Lenin took the place of Tsar Nicholas II. Like Mao took the place of Chiang Kai-shek.

In the colonies, the same people that ran things before the "revolution" were the same people who were running things after the "revolution."

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn pointed out that the term "revolution" was a misnomer when applied to the American separation from Britain. He said the more accurate term was "American war of independence."

So at the end of 1793, King George III was still ruling the United Kingdom, and the elite ruling class in the colonies were still ruling their respective territories.

So it wasn't in fact a "revolution." It was a separation, which does in fact mean a "secession."

Their wrong and Your wrong. You don’t have to replace an entire government in a revolution. From Merriam-Webster.
Revolution-a forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favor of a new system.

Once the founding fathers won their rebellion they replaced the English system with the articles of confederation and then the constitution. The southern rebels would have replaced the US Constitution with the Confederate Constitution.

You sound like Clinton, it depends on what the definition of is is.

He made the Declaration of Independence into a statement on the issue of slavery instead of what it actually was, which was an assertion that states had a right to be free and independent of a larger government which they saw as oppressing them.

He flipped the meaning almost 180 degrees, and used it to justify the very opposite thing which the Declaration said.

Opposition to slavery is not "the very opposite" of opposition to tyranny. Arguably, it is complementary. Argue a case based on general principles, as Jefferson did, and you have to consider where those principles will lead you.

And strictly speaking, the Declaration isn't a state's rights document. The same principle that would allow a state government to break with an oppressive federal union would also allow groups within states (alienated Tennessee and Alabama highlanders, slaves) to break with a government that oppressed them. That is one reason why secession couldn't simply be an automatic right to be exercised whenever one wanted to.

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn pointed out that the term "revolution" was a misnomer when applied to the American separation from Britain. He said the more accurate term was "American war of independence."

Scholars more familiar with the revolution have pointed out the ways in which it was a revolution. It certainly felt like one to those who were alive at the time, and it was more of a revolution than Britain's "Glorious Revolution."

So too, did South Carolinians in 1860 believe that what they were doing was making a revolution. "The tea has been thrown overboard - the revolution of 1860 has been initiated." -- Charleston Mercury, November 8, 1860. Bands even played La Marseillaise when the state seceded.

And you still haven't explained why, if Sumter became South Carolina property when the secession ordinance was passed, US bases in California wouldn't automatically become California property if that state seceded. That's not something you can just duck or skate away from. If the federal government has a legal right to its property in California even after secession, then it had a legal right to its property in South Carolina even after secession. If the federal government has no right to them but you would keep them and defend against attacks by the state anyway, then you are a hypocrite, and we can all pack up and go home.