America itself was founded on a path of violent secession. We got lucky, we won.
I view both entities as of similar moral equivalence -- on the issue of the right to secede, only.
America was not founding on violent secession. America was founded on the right of revolution and the founders didn’t invoke this right until 11 years after England started to oppress them. You know, “a long train of abuses and usurpations.”
Here is a list I made comparing the rebellion of 1776 with the rebellion of 1860-61. It shows in start contrast just how different these two events were.
A comparison between the 1776 rebellion and the 1860 rebellion. RW = the Revolutionary War, ACW = the American Civil War.
The rebelling party was a full member of the body politic:
RW: no. ACW: yes
The rebelling party had willfully and freely entered into the government from which it was rebelling:
RW: no. ACW: yes
The rebelling party had access to full representation on the national stage:
RW: no. ACW: yes
The rebelling party had attempted to have their grievances redressed, and hostilities began before they declared separation and independence:
RW: yes. ACW: No
The rebelling party began their rebellion after losing a free and fair election in which they were a full participant:
RW: no. ACW: yes
The rebelling party made clear in their documents of separation that their main concern was protecting chattel slavery of the African race:
RW: no. ACW: yes
The rebelling party made clear their right to separation through war and de facto independence:
RW: yes. ACW: no
How are these conflicts remotely similar?
Laz, we didn’t secede from anything. We threw of the chains of a monarchy. The Civil War was treason committed against a duly elected government.