Posted on 10/20/2011 12:07:53 PM PDT by FritzG
At the time it was quite illegal. High treason, to be exact.
It also changed the world.
No kidding. Something out of Douglas Adams.
We won. We recognize it as our law. Therefore it is legal. If we had not backed it up with our guns, it would have been treason. History is won by the aggressive use of force.
Of course it was illegal. What a stupid debate.
I see the Brits (liberal ones) are still butthurt. LOL!
*no offense to my British buds on here*
I dunno, but we can certainly replay that little skirmish again if the Brits want.
These are people with too much time on their hands. They need to be directed into somethin constructive.
By the treaty of peace in 1783 King George III recognized the independence of the United States (naming all 13 states). Case closed.
When the Signers pledged their lives in support of the Declaration they did so because they knew they could be hung for treason.
Rule 303 permitted the Declartion.
“...well, they’re legal now.”
And what if they are not? What’s Britain going to do? Repossess the continent? Idiots!
The Brits need to focus their attention on more important matters, like importing more dentists and creating a more appetizing cuisine. (Kidney pie? No thanks, I’ll just have a glass of water and some crackers.)
I’ve read dumber and more stupid articles before, but this is right up there with the most stupid things I have ever read....................
actually, the way the Crown treated the colonies is what was illegal...the Declaration set things right again.
Tell you what. Send in the Red Coats and let’s settle the matter.
“legal” according to what?!?!
Of course the Brit’s didn’t think it was “legal”!
The point is, AMERICA REVOLTED!
The DoI said, we don’t much care what you think and we’re going to go our own way!
The Brit’s didn’t like it, they attacked us, and we kicked their butt, and they went home!
America has been operating independantly, as a sovereign nation for over 235 years.
So, “legal” has little bearing on the subject!
Do the objectors assert it was necessary to have a British grant of freedom, in order for the process to have been “legal”?
Wanna fight about it again?!?!
Could this be a preview of worse things to come when Muslim lawyers will force the issue that acceptance of Sharia Law is constitutionally valid?
Obama to the Queen:
“Here, your majesty, as our separation wasn’t legal, there’s this little $14 TRILLION tab we’d like you to clear up.....”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.