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.
Of course the readmission of the state governments was consensual. If they had not consented, they would not have done the various acts that were required to readmit the state government as a state government to the union.
Of course territorial governments at that time were part of the US, ruled by the US, with the citizens of the territory being US citizens, though still with no representation in the Congress, just like the people of the former states that had participated in the insurrection.
Now I've also heard Mike Church on Patriot Radio speak of our Founders' "secession" from Great Britain.
Really, as a historian and scholar of the period, Church should know much better.
Indeed, he should be ashamed of himself.
In fact, our Founders never used words like "secession", "withdrawal" or "disunion" in relation to their status as colonies of the British Empire.
The reason is obvious: because those words only apply in cases of voluntary political (or otherwise) units such as the new American constitutional republic.
For Founders the question was not "secession" but rather "independence" from a non-representative colonial empire maintained through military force.
For Founders, the word "independence" itself necessarily implied Revolutionary War, but in 1776 there was nothing theoretical about it -- war was already upon them, long before they even considered declaring independence.
Indeed, for our Founders, their Declaration of Independence was a response to the war already being waged on them by the British Empire.
So I'll say it again: in 1776 the Declaration of Independence did not create something new -- independence -- but simply formally acknowledged what had already happened as a result of Britain's war on its American colonies.
By stark contrast, in 1860 there was no "war" on the Slave-Power, no breaches of constitutional contract, no "oppressions" or "usurpations" by the Federal government.
Therefore, the Slave-Powers' Declarations of Secession (not "Independence") were strictly "at pleasure", and therefore not according to our Founders Original Intent.
Brass Lamp: "It isn't a game of word-find.
This is the same little game O.E.O. ..."
In fact, you are playing "word games", hoping to equate the 1776 Declaration of Independence with 1860-1 Declarations of Secession.
Aside from the fact that both intended to announce political separations, they are quite different.
Brass Lamp: "Secession is just the withdrawl and separation of a component of a larger political unit."
But never correctly used to refer to colonies seeking independence from their imperial masters.
Brass Lamp: "Claiming that it doesn't describe the act of secession is like claiming that a gruesomely detailed murder confession..."
Sorry, but as long as words have real meanings, you will never get to redefine this one to suit your pro-Confederate secessionist agenda, FRiend.
Brass Lamp: "Slave-holding Virginians in 1776 are 'Founders', casting off the shackles of British tyranny.
Slave-holding Virginians in 1860 are the 'Slave Power'. "
Actually, one of our slave-holding Founders, to his eternal credit, tried to condemn slavery in the Declaration of Independence.
Yes, Jefferson's efforts were overruled by others, but he at least understood that slavery was morally wicked, and should be gradually abolished.
So did other slave-holders of that generation, including George Washington.
But in stark contrast, by 1860 the Slave-Power (that word itself refers to the extra electoral votes slave-states received from their peculiar "property"), the Slave-Power considered slavery to be a positive moral good, not to be criticized, condemned or complained about in any way whatever.
To a man, they would rather fight and die rather than peacefully give up their "right" to own such "property".
And so they did, in their tens and hundreds of thousands.
Brass Lamp: "Firstly, I thank you for admitting that they exist, legitimacy not withstanding, as that was the point."
Why would you claim that the existence of unrepresentative governments is somehow a matter of debate, rather than a statement of fact?
Your dispute with O.E.O. is not over the existence of unrepresentative governments, but whether such governments can be called "political unions" from which one might "secede" -- for example, the American colonies then subject to the British Empire.
In normal American usage, the word "union" implies a voluntary representative organization, which the British Empire was certainly not really ever, and by 1776 becoming ever less so.
So yes, just as you pointed out to rockrr in post #15, the Brits since 1707 were "United" but hardly a "union" in the American sense of that word. ;-)
Brass Lamp: "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.
Deny that what happened?
The full "reentry" of former Confederate states into normal political processes took some time.
So what?
Brass Lamp: "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."
In fact, I have no problem, but in your lengthy convoluted sentence here, you have no real argument.
The historical facts simply are what they are, and if you wish to claim that former Confederate states took some years before electing their own representatives and other government officials, that in fact is what happened.
So what?
Brass Lamp referring to O.E.O.'s question: "That false dilemma demonstrated some pretty rigid thinking."
I'd suspect instead that "rigid thinking" is your specialty, since I know enough of O.E.O.'s postings to realize his questions to you were simply hoping to draw out your explanations for what, at least on the surface, appear to be unintelligible arguments.