The Revolutionary War

Belisarius

Forum Staff
Jun 2006
10,359
U.K.
OK. But, as Belisarius notes, "His Majesty pleads not guilty." Judged under British common law and notions of international law, His Majesty is, most likely, found not guilty. However, even when judged under notions of natural law and natural right, the colonials probably should have included Parliament in the indictment.
So you agree the King is innocent of all charges. The colonists were therefore wrong in rebelling. Anyone else have a view?
 

Belisarius

Forum Staff
Jun 2006
10,359
U.K.
To go further into what you are saying Kevin, this is from the Preamble of the Declaration:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is theRight of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
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.

Obviously the Congress felt that England was not treating them fairly. I don't think this is something that just popped out of the blue and made the colonies decide they want to be free. George III was very young when he inherited the throne, it is very possible that he was too arrogant for a just rule in America.
You seem to stick at the preamble without looking into the validity of the claims made justifying their declaration. Why? :confused:
 
Feb 2007
538
Ohio
So you agree the King is innocent of all charges. The colonists were therefore wrong in rebelling. Anyone else have a view?
They accused the wrong party. Had the Declaration said "Parliament has ..." wherever it says "the King has ..." they would have been correct. Even then, whether Parliament gets convicted or acquitted depends upon whether the relevant law is natural law/natural rights or British law/international law. But Mr. George Hanover III is found not guilty.
 
Last edited:

Lord_Cronus

Historum Emeritas
Jun 2006
1,047
Georgia
You seem to stick at the preamble without looking into the validity of the claims made justifying their declaration. Why? :confused:
As I said, it was to further what Kevin was implying. I never said the claims were true, but this is what they claim England had done wrong to them. I don't believe they would have done this without a pretty damn good reason, obviously something happened that they disapproved of emensly. It's kind of like the south breaking from the Union. They felt like they were being wronged by the government, which from the sources I have they were, and they sought independence from them the same way the colonies did from England. There is more to the argument than tea in Boston Harbor, I cannot give you a definate answer because I haven't studied the war enough. Someone else more learned than I must give the answer.
 
Apr 2007
25
Louisiana
Im afriad i disagree with you. We had more than enough reason to real the crown. And this is coming from a monarchist :p
 

Lord_Cronus

Historum Emeritas
Jun 2006
1,047
Georgia
I'm not saying they didn't have enough reason to break from England, I'm saying I haven't studied it enough to make a conclusion. As I said, they wouldn't have broke unless there was a good reason behind it. It's extremely hard to say because we weren't alive back then, all we have are letters and such and even then they can be given a slanted side of the story. Something I intend on reading soon is The Federalist Papers. I want to know exactly what was going on in the first sessions of the Continental Congress.