British lawyers in 2011: Declaration of Independence was illegal, treasonable

[Little-Acorn]

I don't know much about British law of that period, but yes, it wouldn't surprise me if the American Declaration of Independence was against British law at the time. And the Americans who signed it, certainly discussed the idea that they may have been committing "treason" against the British crown.

So sue us.

Fortunately, once the Declaration was adopted on July 4, 1776, British law no longer applied on this side of the pond.

Talk about beating a dead horse.....!

But the British at least get a consolation prize. If we hadn't passed the Declaration, they'd probably be speaking German by now.

--------------------------------------

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/20/declaration-independence-was-illegal-grounds-for-treason-british-lawyers-say/?test=latestnews

Declaration of Independence Was 'Illegal,' Grounds for Treason, British Lawyers Say

Published October 20, 2011

The Declaration of Independence was “illegal” and “treasonable,” according to a team of British lawyers, the BBC reports.

The assertion was made at a debate in Philadelphia between British and American lawyers over the legitimacy of the United States of America.

At the debate, pitting British barristers against American attorneys, lawyers for the former colonial power argued that America’s Declaration of Independence in 1776 “was not only illegal, but actually treasonable,” according to the BBC.

The lawyers representing the British team decided that the Americans had no legal grounds for secession. "[President Abraham] Lincoln made the case against secession and he was right."

"The grievances listed in the Declaration were too trivial to justify secession," the British lawyers wrote. "The main one -- no taxation without representation -- was no more than a wish on the part of the colonists, to avoid paying for the expense of protecting them against the French during seven years of arduous war and conflict."

[Noir]

If Ono there was some sort of war...of independence, to settle the issue at the time...

[Thunderknuckles]

I bet these Barristers would have the balls to ask Genghis Khan for a warrant if he came to seize their homes.

[Little-Acorn]

I bet these Barristers would have the balls to ask Genghis Khan for a warrant if he came to seize their homes.

And they might even get the first part of the question out before old Geng ran them through.

[ConHog]

I don't know much about British law of that period, but yes, it wouldn't surprise me if the American Declaration of Independence was against British law at the time. And the Americans who signed it, certainly discussed the idea that they may have been committing "treason" against the British crown.

So sue us.

Fortunately, once the Declaration was adopted on July 4, 1776, British law no longer applied on this side of the pond.

Talk about beating a dead horse.....!

But the British at least get a consolation prize. If we hadn't passed the Declaration, they'd probably be speaking German by now.

--------------------------------------

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/20/declaration-independence-was-illegal-grounds-for-treason-british-lawyers-say/?test=latestnews

Declaration of Independence Was 'Illegal,' Grounds for Treason, British Lawyers Say

Published October 20, 2011

The Declaration of Independence was “illegal” and “treasonable,” according to a team of British lawyers, the BBC reports.

The assertion was made at a debate in Philadelphia between British and American lawyers over the legitimacy of the United States of America.

At the debate, pitting British barristers against American attorneys, lawyers for the former colonial power argued that America’s Declaration of Independence in 1776 “was not only illegal, but actually treasonable,” according to the BBC.

The lawyers representing the British team decided that the Americans had no legal grounds for secession. "[President Abraham] Lincoln made the case against secession and he was right."

"The grievances listed in the Declaration were too trivial to justify secession," the British lawyers wrote. "The main one -- no taxation without representation -- was no more than a wish on the part of the colonists, to avoid paying for the expense of protecting them against the French during seven years of arduous war and conflict."


Certainly it was illegal, and the founders knew it and they said as much. However, they also realized that if they won who was going to prosecute them? If they had loss though, yes they would have been tried for treason.

[DragonStryk72]

You know, I know of no country in all of our history that was like, "Oh, you wanna secede? Sure, that sounds reasonable. Off you go then."

[ConHog]

You know, I know of no country in all of our history that was like, "Oh, you wanna secede? Sure, that sounds reasonable. Off you go then."



Nope, that is about as true a truth as a person can get right there. NO ONE wants to give up anything they have. Including part of a country.

[fj1200]

You know, I know of no country in all of our history that was like, "Oh, you wanna secede? Sure, that sounds reasonable. Off you go then."

But how many former colonies have become independent with not much drama?

[logroller]

But how many former colonies have become independent with not much drama?

Define 'much'. Given the sheer scale and number of parties involved, there's a wide spectrum of drama among anti-colonial/ imperial revolts; which reached its apex in the decades following WWII. Before that though, Brazil's war for independence, from 1822-1823, lasted only 22 months, with ~6000 casualties. Compared to the American Revolution, which lasted 7 years with casualties as high as 50,000. Of course, casualties are only part of the equation, as finances (though less dramatic) were perhaps of greater influence. On the American Revolution--
The British spent about £80 million and ended with a national debt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt) of £250 million, which it easily financed at about £9.5 million a year in interest. The French spent 1.3 billion livres (about £56 million). Their total national debt was £187 million, which they could not easily finance; over half the French national revenue went to debt service in the 1780s. The debt crisis became a major enabling factor of the French Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution)as the government could not raise taxes without public approval.[101] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War#cite_note-100) The United States spent $37 million at the national level plus $114 million by the states. This was mostly covered by loans from France and the Netherlands, loans from Americans, and issuance of an increasing amount of paper money (which became "not worth a continental.") The U.S. finally solved its debt and currency problems in the 1790s whenAlexander Hamilton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hamilton) spearheaded the establishment of the First Bank of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bank_of_the_United_States).- wiki
(hmm, an international debt crisis and intercontinental war over freedom-- vaguely familiar)

From a paper on African Nationalism (http://exploringafrica.matrix.msu.edu/students/curriculum/m7b/activity4.php). Interestingly, as far back as the early 20th century, newly converted African Christians were some of the most vocal opponents of colonialism, recognizing the non-Christian ethics involved in the colonial oppression. By 1966, all but six of the african colonies had relatively peaceful transitions to independence: Angola (Portugal/settler) Mozambique (Portugal/settler), Namibia (South Africa/settler), South Africa (settler) and Zimbabwe (British/settler); and the small Portuguese colony of Guinea Bissau and Cape Verde in West Africa was the sixth colony. But a far greater number of nationalist movements were granted self-rule thanks to the Atlantic Charter; which, among other tenants, states all people have a right to self-determination. The holdouts among those settler colonies responded to non-violent protests with laws banning all political protests and, of course, with violence and arrests of dissident leaders (definitely drama).

[CSM]

OH! well then clearly the other nations on the planet must withdraw recognition of the United States of America as a soveriegn power and the United Nations should call for sanctions against the US (after they remove the US diplomats from all functions there). I suppose NATO should start enforcing a "no fly zone" over the US too. The World Bank should lock down all assets and of course the nations of the world should declare any and all treaties made with the US since 1776 null and void. I expect all politicians and beauracrats presently occupying government positions to leave immediately and be replaced by appointed functionaries of the Crown! Also, any acquisitions made by the illegal US government since 1776 must be redressed and all territories, holdings and transactions made by the illegal government shall be transferred or compensated.

LOL! I suppose the whole effort was an exercise in mental gymnastics; I see no other purpose.

[fj1200]

Define 'much'.

True, I was thinking of former British colonies like Australia, Canada, etc. where it was acceptable to "leave the crown"... sort of.

[logroller]

True, I was thinking of former British colonies like Australia, Canada, etc. where it was acceptable to "leave the crown"... sort of.
Australia, I suppose-- don't know really, but i'd guess their sovereignty was granted simply due to the logistics. Canada, while self-governed, is still a constitutional monarchy; meaning the Queen still has a constitutional role and title, as Queen of Canada. So I wouldn't say they left the crown.

[fj1200]

Hence, sort of. ;)

[LuvRPgrl]

True, I was thinking of former British colonies like Australia, Canada, etc. where it was acceptable to "leave the crown"... sort of.

Australia was a former colony that housed prisoners, so the brits figured, thank goodness they want independenc.e

[LuvRPgrl]

OH! well then clearly the other nations on the planet must withdraw recognition of the United States of America as a soveriegn power and the United Nations should call for sanctions against the US (after they remove the US diplomats from all functions there). I suppose NATO should start enforcing a "no fly zone" over the US too. The World Bank should lock down all assets and of course the nations of the world should declare any and all treaties made with the US since 1776 null and void. I expect all politicians and beauracrats presently occupying government positions to leave immediately and be replaced by appointed functionaries of the Crown! Also, any acquisitions made by the illegal US government since 1776 must be redressed and all territories, holdings and transactions made by the illegal government shall be transferred or compensated. .


I think its more like the english want to be able to control us, we dont have any right to vote, the english will send over people to run our business andd we pay them taxes,


LOL! I suppose the whole effort was an exercise in mental gymnastics; I see no other purpose.

well, its a group of lawyers, ya know.


IM JUST WONDERING WHAT exactly constitutes "legal"

legal would have to mean one of two things, a majority of people all agree its legal, or someone who has the power to enforce it, declares it so.
Either way the British lose out.

[Delenn]

It was treasonable. The reason that Jefferson's draft was not used is because he flat out lied. However, the usurpation and abuse list found in the DOI was modeled on Locke's Second Treatise of Government. The no taxation w/o representation was a crock. You know how people view those that receive government aid? The colonies were the welfare recipients of the time. All of the people across the pond were paying taxes to support services in the colonies.

People don't realize this but King George III was the first King in awhile to speak English from the Hanoverian line. His predecessors spoke German. He was able to scrutinize the colonies and they were unable to get away with what they had been. This ticked off a specific class of people.

At some point, you just have to look back at history and say, "Yeah." We have had these conversations from the inception of this country. All in all, much ado about 'nuttin'.