Replies

I see nothing in that paragraph about “at pleasure”. However in the next paragraph they say this.

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. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

No “at pleasure” there. Can’t think of a more light or transient cause in a constitutional republic, with all the checks and balances we have, then because a party you don’t like has won the presidency.

I see nothing in that paragraph about “at pleasure”.

You choose not to see it.

Consent."

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes

"Prudence" be D@mned! What people should do has no bearing on what they have a RIGHT to do. Prudence may dictate that you should not drink, but this does not make it forbidden.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations

In who's opinion were these a "long train of abuses and usurpations"? The British people did not consider them such. Neither did the Canadians, nor did the 30% or so of the American population that remained Loyalists.

So *WHO* gets to decide what is an abuse or an usurpation?

Can’t think of a more light or transient cause in a constitutional republic,

How about this one? It seems utterly ridiculous to me that they would consider this an "abuse".

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

OMG! No new laws! What a HORRIBLE thing to do to people! How in the world can a population survive if we don't have busy body troublemakers creating new LAWS for us to suffer under?

After hundreds of years of government, and all the passage of past laws, we would be forsaken and forlorn without the ability of legislatures to constantly create new ones!

In case you are missing it, that is sarcasm.

I clearly do not regard their inability to pass new laws as an "abuse" or an "usurpation." In my mind this is just silly, and represents a little tiff on the part of the people upon whom the King imposed it.

In fact, you have to read pretty far into the Declaration to find something I would consider an "abuse" or an "Usurpation."

Here is an example or two.

"He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance."
For cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

Those are things the North did to the South.

"He has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People."
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the Executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us

North also did this.

But many of the "Abuses and Usupations" are whining about their inability to make new laws. Silly. Just silly. Not anything I would regard as an actual abuse under a monarchist system.

And Lincoln did all these things to the South.

"For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our Governments:"
He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the People.
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever.

A thought has occurred to me. You often make a point of posting secession statements from the three or four states that listed it as their reason for wanting out of the Union.

The fact that you do so implies that their reasons for wanting to leave matter to you.

Is this correct? Do you consider their reasons for wanting to leave important?