[Dimensio]

It sounds like you are practicing law without a license, and without an understanding of history. First, the creation of the United States preceded the peace treaty that ended the revolution. Did you get the ideas you are espousing in the Close Cover Before Striking School of Law?

I have never claimed to dispense legal advice.

Following 7/4/1776, the Unites States Congress passed numerous laws, none of which were approved by the British. The fact that France and the Dutch, among others, recognized the United States, and provided them with arms, money and supplies, should put to rest any silly assertions that none of the laws passed by the Continental Congress (including borrowing money, printing currency and creating a standing army) were not legally binding.

Well, yes, the colonies declared independence and acted as such, but they were still not offically free of British control so long as the British government chose to assert or enforce their authority -- that France recognized the independence of the colonies was no more official than the fact that Germany officially recognized the British rule thereof. The war and subsequent peace treaty are only of direct historical significance because the British lost control and the colonies gained independence -- had the war gone the other way (and no resurgence of rebellion occured) then it would have been regarded as a civil war between the British colonies and a large organization of rebels and traitors.

Wrong. There is a huge difference between a civil war and a war designed to sunder the ties between a distant colony and a colonial power. If you don’t understand that, I’m not going to try to explain it to you. If you want to ask our British cousins, you may ask them if there was a difference between the war for American independence and the Civil War between the King and Cromwell.

I understand fully that there are significant differences between the US Civil War and the War of Independence. The economic and political motivations were amongst them, but the purpose in the end was the same -- a group of states attempting to sever ties with their controlling nation to form an independent country of their own. The differences -- such as the one being an empire in an impossible struggle to hold control to a colony halfway across the world to maintain economic superiority while the other being a battle to prevent states within the same landmass from dropping out and likely causing economic chaos -- were likely amongst the reasons that one succeeded and the other failed.

Thanks to my ability to ramble. this is getting hopelessly off-subject. Part of the issue of whether or not a country is "independent" and exactly when that happens is philosophical in nature, thus debate really can't solve it.

[moneyrunner]

”Well, yes, the colonies declared independence and acted as such, but they were still not offically free of British control so long as the British government chose to assert or enforce their authority -- that France recognized the independence of the colonies was no more official than the fact that Germany officially recognized the British rule thereof. The war and subsequent peace treaty are only of direct historical significance because the British lost control and the colonies gained independence -- had the war gone the other way (and no resurgence of rebellion occured) then it would have been regarded as a civil war between the British colonies and a large organization of rebels and traitors.”

What in the world do you mean by “officially free of British control.” Who is the official? What is the over-arching legal system to which you are appealing? The United States declared its independence, raised an army, made alliances with other countries, and won their war. What is so hard to understand.

I realize why you are raising these red herrings. You wish to make the Declaration of Independence an unofficial document. Sorry, it is not. It precedes the Articles of Confederation and the US Constitution, but is nevertheless as much an official document: drafted, debated, amended and passed by the United States Congress. It became the law of the land.

If you make the argument that if the United States had lost the revolutionary war, the British would have continued to rule North America, you are right. However, the Declaration would have been used to indict and convict its signers, and they would have hung as rebels.

And please, learn the difference between a civil war and a war for the independence of a colony.

”I understand fully that there are significant differences between the US Civil War and the War of Independence. The economic and political motivations were amongst them, but the purpose in the end was the same -- a group of states attempting to sever ties with their controlling nation to form an independent country of their own. The differences -- such as the one being an empire in an impossible struggle to hold control to a colony halfway across the world to maintain economic superiority while the other being a battle to prevent states within the same landmass from dropping out and likely causing economic chaos -- were likely amongst the reasons that one succeeded and the other failed.”

No, apparently you do not understand. First, the rebellion of the United Stated against the British crown was not at all an impossible struggle for the British. The British lost because of the intervention of the French navy. Please don’t forget that most of the growth of the British Empire occurred following the American Revolution, not preceding it. The British held on to India (somewhat farther away) for far longer. So the assumption of the inevitability of American success is sheer 20/20 myopia.

The American Civil War was not between an empire and its colonies. I doubt if the South would have regarded itself as a colony of the North. Sometimes Civil Wars are about who controls the national government, sometimes it is about breaking away, but it is always about a war within a single country.

The South failed in the Civil War because of had fewer men, industry and armaments. Plus, it failed to gather the support of foreign governments to offset its weaknesses. “Economic chaos” had nothing to do with it.

We have gone round about. The point is that the Declaration of Independence is more that flowery language and pious hopes devoid of official sanctions. It had the force of law in binding the individual states, as represented by the Continental Congress, to independence. Later laws and the Constitution only build on this basic framework.