Remember this: our Founders in 1776 declared neither secession nor rebellion.
Instead, they declared their "United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States."
Free from British imperial military rule, Independent of oppressive British laws.
The word "secession" was not used, because it did not apply.
And the American War of Rebellion had long since started -- started by the British.
In 1776 there was no Declaration of War by either Brits or our Founders.
By stark contrast, in 1861, Slave Power secessionists both started war (at Fort Sumter) and formally declared war on the United States (May 6, 1861).
Brass Lamp: "most people in this world today are in some political union without representation."
Americans have never considered such governments as entirely legitimate.
Brass Lamp: "The same way the conquered states were forced back into a political union actually called "The Union" during reconstruction without representation."
States which had previously been in rebellion against the United States were required to meet certain standards (i.e., slavery abolished) before being fully readmitted after the war.
By the way, FRiend Brass Lamp, your arrogant and condescending comments such as this:
Comments like that don't improve your own argument.
They don't make you appear more brilliant, really, just the opposite, they make you sound stupid -- as if you don't really have a good argument to make, and so just throw out condescending insults instead.
I say: if you have a real argument to make, then make it, but first go through it and delete the unnecessary insults, then re-read to see if your case still makes good sense, even to you.
What they declared was a course of action which constituted a secession from a larger political realm. Because the Crown forbade this, they were rebelling against the authority of the larger political unit.
Instead, they declared their "United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States." Free from British imperial military rule, Independent of oppressive British laws. The word "secession" was not used, because it did not apply.
It isn't a game of word-find. This is the same little game 0.E.O tried to play in the football thread, in which he demanded that the word "explicit" appear to demonstrate explicit language. Secession is just the withdrawl and separation of a component of a larger political unit. The very clause, "That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved" is secession boldly written. Claiming that it doesn't describe the act of secession is like claiming that a gruesomely detailed murder confession just ain't so because the perpetrator didn't use the word "homicide" when narrating his latest ax killing.
By stark contrast, in 1861, Slave Power secessionists both started war (at Fort Sumter) and formally declared war on the United States (May 6, 1861).
Well now your trying what rockrr tried earlier, employing a double-standard in condemnation of slavery. Slave-holding Virginians in 1776 are "Founders", casting off the shackles of British tyranny. Slave-holding Virginians in 1860 are the "Slave Power". The institution had hardly changed at all. Maybe you just feel differently about them, for some reason unrelated to the plight of the enslaved.
Brass Lamp: "most people in this world today are in some political union without representation."
BroJoeK: Americans have never considered such governments as entirely legitimate.
Firstly, I thank you for admitting that they exist, legitimacy not withstanding, as that was the point.
Secondly, the issue of their legitimacy is not withstanding because "legitimacy" is a matter of manifesting something in law and the word is used to mean that something is given legal existence. A despotic government is quite a bit more likely to give itself legal sanction and less likely to critically review its own actions in court. Corrupt governments tend to grant themselves legitimacy as a matter of coarse. Maybe you meant that they should be seen as invalid on philosophical grounds.
Thirdly, you IMMEDIATELY followed that line with:
BroJoeK: States which had previously been in rebellion against the United States were required to meet certain standards (i.e., slavery abolished) before being fully readmitted after the war.
Apologia is confession. When you explain why a thing is done, you admit that a thing was done. In attempting to justify the non-consensual inclusion of a political section into a larger unit, you've merely forfeited the ability to deny that it happened.
When compared to the claim "Americans have never considered such governments as entirely legitimate" -- the such being "political union without representation", the sort of which you just admitted (by way of justification) the Union to have been -- it can be see that you have a problem with your argument. Surely, you don't mean to allow it conclude with a general American condemnation of the United States.
Finally,
...your arrogant and condescending comments...
...about binary thinking and poor reading comprehension referred to a line in post #142 in which I was challenged to determine whether 'rebellion' and 'secession' were synonymous terms simply because I denied that were exclusive. That false dilemma demonstrated some pretty rigid thinking. It also seemingly ignored the point of the previous post. So I dinged him on those two counts.