Posted on 03/30/2021 7:37:10 PM PDT by Liz
Every member of the Continental Congress who had gathered that fateful day, August 2, 1776, to sign the Declaration of Independence automatically became a criminal, guilty of sedition against a tyrannical King George III. Signing was dangerous as it subjected the patriots to the whims of the King which included arrest and loss of property and wealth.
Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration’s author, had outlined indictments against the King that justified the issuing of the Declaration of Independence and the subsequent rebellion: “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.”
Charles Carroll (September 19, 1737 – November 14, 1832), known as Charles Carroll of Carrollton or Charles Carroll III to distinguish him from his similarly-named relatives,was an American statesman, a wealthy Maryland planter, an early advocate of independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain and one of the signers of the American Declaration of Independence.
The sole Catholic signer of the Declaration, he is one of the Founding Fathers of the United States. Carroll was known contemporaneously as the "First Citizen" of the American Colonies, a consequence of signing articles in the Maryland Gazette with that pen name.
Though barred from holding office in Maryland due to his Catholicism, Carroll emerged as a leader of the state's movement for independence. He was a delegate to the Annapolis Convention and was selected as a delegate to the Continental Congress in 1776.
Carroll became a leading opponent of British rule, and served on various committees of correspondence. He also played an important role in the burning in Annapolis harbor of the Peggy Stewart, a ship carrying tea to Maryland, and was destroyed on October 19, 1774 as part of the tea party protests against British excise duties enacted by the Parliament in the "Tea Act". The day of the burning is commemorated in Maryland by a state holiday and historical event commemorating the American Revolution, known as "Peggy Stewart Day" on October 19.
In the early 1770s Charles Carroll appears to have embraced the idea that only violence could break the impasse with Great Britain. According to legend, Carroll and Samuel Chase (who would also later sign the Declaration of Independence on Maryland's behalf) had the following exchange:
Chase: "We have the better of our opponents; we have completely written them down." Carroll: "And do you think that writing will settle the question between us?" Chase: "To be sure, what else can we resort to?" Carroll: "The bayonet. Our arguments will only raise the feelings of the people to that pitch, when open war will be looked to as the arbiter of the dispute."
WIKI--Signer Charles Carroll because of his wealth, had more to lose than most of his co-signers. Some of the signators, such as Caesar Rodney and Button Gwinnett, had unusual and distinctive names which would clearly identify them to the King; other signators, with more commonplace names, might hope to sign the Declaration without incriminating themselves.
Charles Carroll distinctive signature on the Declaration of Independence famously stood out.
According to American history, when it was Carroll's turn to sign the Declaration of Independence, he rose, went to John Hancock's desk where the document rested, signed his name "Charles Carroll" and returned to his seat.
At this point another member of the Continental Congress, who was prejudiced against Carroll because of Carroll's Catholicism, commented that Carroll risked nothing in signing the document, as there must be many men named Charles Carroll in the colonies, and so the King would be unlikely to order Carroll's arrest without clear proof that he was the same Charles Carroll who had signed the Declaration.
Carroll immediately returned to Hancock's desk, seized the pen again, and added "of Carrollton" to his name....so there would be no mistaking that he, himself, was the signatory.
Benjamin Franklin observed that rebellion is always legal in the second person as “our rebellion”...only in the third person “their rebellion” that it becomes illegal.
Interesting story regarding Carroll. I guess Catholics (or at least the church) was different back then, not preaching ‘liberation theology’ and not inviting in Third World types and conspiring with the government to ‘settle’ them.
I would agree that the Declaration of Independence was
considered an act of sedition, but I would rather not
cast what took place on January 6th, as another such
act.
And I should point out that I don’t believe you made that
case at all. In fact, you provided facts that made it
clear they were different.
The Conservative leaning people who took part in the 01/06
event, had no declarations in hand. They were not looking
to topple the government of the United States. Nothing was
signed declaring loyalty to a new entity.
The most that could be said about them, is that they were
calling on our leaders to do their jobs, in accordance
with our laws and the fundamental tenets of the Constitution
of the United States.
This distinction is important > IMO, due to the fact it
manifestly destroys the idea those events were that of an
insurrection. None of what took place could be framed in
that context.
No written demands.
No attempt to take elected officials into custody.
No attempt to topple even one branch of government.
Think of the government calling it a Valentine-Day
Party.
No valentines. No love notes. No verbal declarations
of love. No pursuit of a lifetime commitment...
The government’s case is idiotic.
Civil unrest? Sure. Insurrection? Comical...
Evidence indicates sedition charges likely over Capitol riots, prosecutor says
Axios via Yahoo ^ | March 21st, 2021 | Rebecca Falconer
FR Posted on 3/21/2021, 9:26:02 PM by Mariner
Michael Sherwin, the federal prosecutor who until recently was leading the criminal investigation into the Capitol riots, told CBS’ “60 Minutes” Sunday that evidence indicates sedition charges will be laid against some suspects.
Why it matters: Few people have faced this Civil War-era charge, which makes it a crime to conspire or overthrow the government. But Sherwin told CBS’ Scott Pelley “the evidence is trending towards that” charge “and probably meets those elements.”
“I believe the facts do support those charges. And I think that, as we go forward, more facts will support that,” he added.
Of note: During his interview, Pelley asked Sherwin if investigators were looking into former President Trump’s role in Jan. 6 insurrection. “We have people looking at everything,” Sherwin replied.
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
Hardly seditious.
Or, rather, zero at all.
Congress, on the other hand, was seditious and are now illegitimate representatives (almost all) due to taking part in a seditious act - authorizing a fraudulent election.
I don’t know how they can defend that charge.
Nobody was armed.
Are they going to tell me this was a well laid plan to
overturn the government without a manifesto, without arms,
without capturing leaders, without illegal demands, without a
certain amount of money extorted, without capturing, and
holding a structure?
Did they declare it to no longer be property of the United
State?
Not one thing that contributes to an insurrection transpired.
Trespass is not the same as an insurrection.
Great defense.
And if my suggestion sounds to rough, I'll just say that at least Salvadore Allende didn't steal is election.
Give me liberty or give me death!
politico.com
EXCERPT Most of the people who entered the building presumably just took advantage of the situation. That doesn’t alleviate their legal liability, but it also doesn’t make them part of a grand insurrection conspiracy — as prosecutors and administration officials claimed publicly.
That’s the problem that the Biden White House will now face, Politico’s legal analysts Josh Gerstein and Kyle Cheney write. They fumbled the expectations game, choosing the immediate benefit of stoking outrage over the long-term credibility issues that failure to deliver will bring:
The prospect of dozens of Jan. 6 rioters cutting deals for minor sentences could be hard to explain for the Biden administration, which has characterized the Capitol Hill mob as a uniquely dangerous threat. … Justice Department prosecutors sent expectations sky-high in early statements and court filings, describing elaborate plots to murder lawmakers — descriptions prosecutors have tempered as new details emerged.
That’s not the only PR problem the Biden administration and its DoJ has created for itself. They also may get hoist by their own equity petard:
The resolution of the more mundane cases also presents acute questions about equity, since most of the Capitol riot defendants are white, while misdemeanor charges are often a vexing problem for minority defendants in other cases.
These are the reasons why the DoJ rarely discussed cases in public before filing charges, at least before the Hillary Clinton investigations. For the past six years or so, prosecutors and higher-ups have played politics with these investigations, and their credibility has suffered as a result. It might have been impossible to refrain from all commentary on an event as existential to the institutions of republican democracy as the assault on Congress, but the DoJ and the administration had a duty to refrain from hyperbole about it … and it might have been a safer political choice, too.
Just how embarrassing will this prove, though? Even if most of those charged only end up with misdemeanors and no jail time, convicting a few organizers on the more serious charges will likely make up for it. If prosecutors win convictions on felonies for conspiracy and violent actions against the ringleaders, that will still get the Biden administration enough cover to declare victory. Beware of the hyperbole in both directions.
> Civil unrest? Sure. Insurrection? Comical... <
I’ve got to agree. Now here’s the interesting thing. The MSM is calling the January event an insurrection. It’s an attempt to inflame passions. We should not be helping them with that.
And I’ll take it a step further. The folks who were protesting outside of the Capitol were patriots who were exercising their First Amendment rights. But the folks who actually broke into the Capitol were committing criminal trespass. They did nothing but hurt our cause. Conservatives who defend them might as well defend Antifa when they break into a mayor’s office.
The crimes have to reach a certain level to be an insurrection. They didn’t
meet that level.
If they want to charge the ANTIFA folks for breaking and entering, I’m all
for it.
Insurrection? The requirements to qualify just aren’t there.
The charge is baseless.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.