This statement shows the total lack of understanding of our Declaration of Independence. America was founded on certain universal truths:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —
Independence only became necessary (and risky) as a last resort:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.to achieve the former.
In fact the reason for the Declaration was that the founders thought it necessary to explain in detail the decision to take the action.
When in the Course of human events it becomes NECESSARY . . . a decent respect to the opinions of mankind REQUIRES that they should declare the causes which IMPEL them to the separation.
Abraham Lincoln, one of the great scholars of the Declaration of Independence, knew the distinction well. The south separated not for the principles of liberty but for slavery; political independence is only a means, not a truth or ideal.
If Sean Connery wants to make the case for independence it better be in service to life or liberty. Likewise, when the Dali Lama reveals himself as an avowed marxist, his case for independence should fall on deaf ears.
“Abraham Lincoln, one of the great scholars of the Declaration of Independence, knew the distinction well. The south separated not for the principles of liberty but for slavery...”
Abraham Lincoln was not a “scholar” of the Declaration of Independence, although I am sure that he actually read it more than a few times.
The South did wish independence for Liberty, and to preserve their distinctive culture. It sounds paradoxical in view of the slavery issue, but if you read what Southerners said, and look at their actions, it is evident. The North, on the other hand, was outraged that the nation was being weakened by division, and saw secession as unpatriotic and treasonable. You can fairly say that the motives on both sides were very similar.
I have a letter from an ancient cousin who fought in the Union Army from Pennsylvania. He feared that the South would invade and destroy his state! A Virginian might almost have written the same letter.
When it came down to slavery or independence, independence was more important to the leaders of the South. That is why they instituted a plan (too late!) to arm slaves as soldiers, and to give them freedom in return for service to the Confederacy. Many Southern leaders were not favorable to slavery, including Lee. That is why when the war ended, amongst the destruction and defeat, the South felt one sense of relief: that the slavery matter was over with. Almost no one wrote anything advocating its return, ever. I think that they were glad to be done with it.
A long winded reply with your real comment buried at the end. Whether or not the Dali Lama is a marxist or not, Tibet was a free and sovereign nation , until overrun by the communist Chinese(I guess you forgot they are also marxists, or more properly, maoists)by force of arms,and deserves to be free once again without Chinese a**hats killing them off and taking their land and businesses.
You spout off about why we broke from England, chief among them the statement that the treatment from England had become so bad it was time to get out. Well, since Tibet was never a part of China, not a colony or territory, and was taken over simply because China wanted it, I would say all the criteria stated by our forefathers for obtaining independence has been met and Tibet needs to be armed to resist these communists dictators.
Double speak such as yours is worthy of a an Obama or Clinton.