tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post526490471898776857..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: Brits: American Revolution IllegalBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-75520944335000028412011-11-11T11:24:34.129-07:002011-11-11T11:24:34.129-07:00The legal predicate of the American colonists'...The legal predicate of the American colonists' argument is that the King had placed themselves outside of his protection (which he had done), thus releasing them from their duty of obedience to the King. Since they had never consented to Parliament's authority over the colonies (just as Parliament had no authority over the King's other non-British dominions like Hanover), Parliament was acting illegally in its assertions of authority over the American colonies. Hence, it was the Americans who were acting in defense of the their traditional rights & liberties, as well as the principles of natural law, while it was the British who were attempting to impose an unlawful regime on the Americans. <br /><br />That the Brits refuse to recognize this is no surprise.Mark D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05000893614655251587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-11937553145020542772011-11-09T05:49:00.582-07:002011-11-09T05:49:00.582-07:00Good review of the Patriots’ distinction of Parlia...Good review of the Patriots’ distinction of Parliament’s lack of jurisdiction and the King’s failure to act appropriately. As Jonathan Mayhew once said of Charles I: he “un-Kinged” himself. <br /><br />A violation of law? Of course, the DoI wasn’t a violation of natural law. It set forth several constraints: the purpose of government, the failure of the King in regard to that purpose, and the natural right of the government to separate as a consequence. It doesn’t justify separation (or secession) as a fundamental principle in the pursuit of any whim or illicit purpose.Jason Pappashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18233796281520274898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-72738506840410727362011-11-09T02:56:38.292-07:002011-11-09T02:56:38.292-07:00Good job Tom.Good job Tom.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13525858551867530960noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-10729728746915074112011-11-08T11:17:21.886-07:002011-11-08T11:17:21.886-07:00How much have we done of John Wesley's argumen...How much have we done of John Wesley's arguments on the American Revolution? I recall a very interesting and nuanced case from him.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-35072976389164760392011-11-07T06:12:10.432-07:002011-11-07T06:12:10.432-07:00In my opinion, the best place to go, as always, is...In my opinion, the best place to go, as always, is Jack Greene.<br /><br />http://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Origins-American-Revolution-Histories/dp/0521132304/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1320671053&sr=1-1#_secular squarehttp://secularsquare.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.com