9 comments

• 

  Fin Fang Foom

  1 year ago

  How would it be not legitimate? Vis a vis the U.S. government today, what does it do that compares to the list of grievances given against the British government in 1776.
  reply
• 

  Swimmy

  1 year ago

  Fin: You know, after all these years, DC's license plates still say "Taxation Without Representation." But hey, what's one city?
  reply
• 

  Fin Fang Foom

  1 year ago

  So, that's like one thing out of a long list of grievances for one tiny section of the country . I don't think there'd have been a revolution if the Crown had levied taxes on Rhode Island alone.
  reply
• 

  jtlevy

  1 year ago

  He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
  
  He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither,
  
  He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
  
  He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
  
  For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
  
  For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
  
  For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
  
  [Remembering that in each case these were plausible but not unassailable descriptions of what had gone on, subject to being nitpicked but in totalevincing a design, etc...]
  reply
• 

  jim47

  1 year ago

  But if you think [the American Revolution] was [legitimate], then you’re pretty clearly committed to the proposition that a violent overthrow of the American government this afternoon would be legitimate.

  
  
  If the people of the federal polity, either by a direct vote, by the vote of a convention specially elected for the purpose of deciding such a question or by some other overwhelmingly obvious display of rebuke, were to decide to alter or abolish the federal government, and the officers of the federal government refused to comply, then, yes, the violent overthrow of the government would be legitimate. I am uncertain what could cause such a series of events today — in practical terms the political sentiments of the American people make the amendment procedure of the federal constitution is a much lower bar to cross.
  
  Alternately, were some territory of United States comprising a polity distinct from and non-coterminous with the federal polity to demand self rule and the US refuse, that territory would be justified in violent separation. My understanding is that such polities have not encountered this resistance, and it has instead been the reverse — for instance, I believe Palau chose to remain dependent until it could negotiate a favorable terms as an Associated State.
  
  So, no, barring something quite unexpected, believing the American Revolution was legitimate does not logically mandate that revolution this afternoon would be legitimate.
  reply
• 

  Jason Armstrong

  1 year ago

  Three words: Taxation without representation. When you aren't getting representation, revolution is legitimate. When you are, revolution is illegitimate. We are getting it, so revolution tomorrow would be illegitimate.
  reply
• 

  scineram

  1 year ago

  Taxation is illegitimate.
  So is representation.
  reply
• 

  jtlevy

  1 year ago

  The Declaration conspicuously does *not* elevate taxation without representation above the other justifications for independence. It was the core of the original dispute, but Britain's subsequent steps in its attempt to bring the colonies to heel are more prominent in the list of complaints by 1776. Birmingham and Manchester, like Virginia and Massachusetts, were taxed without representation-- but only the Americans were subject to courts of admiralty, trials out of their jurisdiction, and all the rest.
  reply
• 

  TGGP

  1 year ago

  Didn't Edmund Burke discuss in his Reflections how we should not take a deviation (in his case the Glorious Revolution, here the War of Independence) for the rule? I do take the Caplanian position on it though, as I mention here.
  reply