US Declaration of Independence - Legal or Illegal?

[zulu9812]

I've just seen this topic discussed on the BBC and I was curious what CFC-ers thought. Some salient points:

Natural Law

The basic premise is that government is only legal when it has the consent of the people (e.g. via elections). Furthermore, allegiance is not required in the face of tyranny - which puts paid to questions of duty or nationalism.

Arguably, this concept is enshrined in the UN Declaration of Human Rights as that document endorses equality and self-determination.

Legal Principle of Secession

On the other hand, a unilateral declaration of independence, wholly from those doing the seceding, is illegal. In other words, to leave a country requires the consent of the ruling body of that country. Arguably, this principle was enshrined in US law by Abraham Lincoln during the US Civil War. If any state of the US wished to declare independence today, could they do so without the federal government saying yes?

A Third Consideration

If the only legal government is that which has the consent of the people, how can such a government (i.e. a democratic one, like the USA) enter into agreements with tyrannies such as China or (formerly) the USSR? Furthermore, the USA has been shown to be complicit in propping up dictatorships, e.g. in Chile, Nicaragua, Iraq, etc. Would such treaties and agreements be illegal, by virtue of the principle of Natural Law?

My own spin on things

This topic bears special relevance to modern Britain. Scotland would seem to be moving towards independence. Could Scotland unilaterally declare its own independence, or would it need permission from London?

Vote in the poll!

 

[Berzerker]

to leave a country requires the consent of the ruling body of that country. Arguably, this principle was enshrined in US law by Abraham Lincoln during the US Civil War.

and that would make the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution illegal...

 

[aronnax]

Cue "Right is Might" people.

 

[Quackers]

definitely bacon sandwiches

 

[MjM]

definitely bacon sandwiches

How do you make a bacon sandwich?

 

[Antilogic]

I'm a firm believer in natural law--people have a right to representation in their government. Speaking of representation, let's take a quick look at how well the South is represented in 1860: they had equal representation in the senate (30 seats), a large block in the House of Representatives (90 seats), a majority of Supreme Court justices were either current or former slaveowners (5 out of 7), and the majority of presidents were from states that would secede by 1861 (8 out of 15). Any comparison between the South in 1860 and the Thirteen Colonies in 1775 is downright comical.

Your third consideration, while an interesting debate on its own, does not strike me as relevant. Nations, most of the time, must negotiate with and make treaties with recognized governments, and that includes authoritarian ones.

 

[Cutlass]

Certainly illegal. By the law at the time anyways. Except, of course, we won. So retroactively legalized, if not legal previously. But by natural law it was legal, because Americans were being denied certain fundamental rights. So which hold? Natural rights, or the existing law at the time? Depending on perspective, either or both.

The comparison with the Civil War is fundamentally a false one. The South was not being denied any rights. And did not attempt to reconcile grievances (which they really didn't have any in the first place) through peaceful and lawful means they started shooting.

 

[Smellincoffee]

It isn't a question of legality, it's a question of standing up for yourself and being able to defend your decision against the malevolent will of those who seek to subdue you.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Illegal, but the rebels and traitors won so it doesn't matter.

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

This topic bears special relevance to modern Britain. Scotland would seem to be moving towards independence. Could Scotland unilaterally declare its own independence, or would it need permission from London?

The only permission Scotland need is the approval of the Scottish people.

Should apply to any secessionist movement.

 

[Antilogic]

The comparison with the Civil War is fundamentally a false one. The South was not being denied any rights. And did not attempt to reconcile grievances (which they really didn't have any in the first place) through peaceful and lawful means they started shooting.

Crittenden Compromise, anyone?

EDIT: I suppose I should comment on Scotland, given the OP brought it up and other posters have commented on it. I hadn't heard of this Scottish nationalism literally until reading this thread (when it comes to European breakups, I usually hear about Belgium or Spain, or Greece getting ostracized from the monetary union). Scotland has MPs in Parliament, as well as full voting rights, so it's difficult to make a natural-law case because they receive representation in the UK government.

Isn't it a bit ironic that Scotland, which inherited England to form the United Kingdom, is now trying to break away from it?

 

[Patroklos]

Illegal. The idea of a legal rebellion is ridiculous on its face. If it was legal, then it wasn't a rebellion.

 

[Leoreth]

Isn't it a bit ironic that Scotland, which inherited England to form the United Kingdom, is now trying to break away from it?

So by that logic the Netherlands and the German state of Lower Saxony (formerly known as Kingdom of Hannover) should want to join the UK as well?

I think the whole question of legality of rebellions is a little tricky, because when a rebellion starts, it's an inherently domestic question, but if it succeeds, it becomes an international question.

 

[Antilogic]

So by that logic the Netherlands and the German state of Lower Saxony (formerly known as Kingdom of Hannover) should want to join the UK as well?

I think the whole question of legality of rebellions is a little tricky, because when a rebellion starts, it's an inherently domestic question, but if it succeeds, it becomes an international question.

I was just pointing out the humor in the situation. The argument of representation (unquoted) is far more important to look at.

 

[amadeus]

The American secession was most certainly illegal.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Illegal, yeah. Remember: not having a legal right doesn't mean that you don't have a moral right. The legality and morality of an action are different.

The international law murks this question a bit. But if there was something that can be called an "international law" in late 1700's, it was certainly not pro-rebellion.

 

[Core Imposter]

Cue "Right is Might" people.

Present?

Neither morality nor ethics nor legality apply to a sovereign people nor those who desire independence. Might not be right but it plays brother.

 

[Winner]

Illegal and lacking any profound justification. I've always thought the colonists' grievances were laughable, they were such a band of whiners and hypocrites.

 

[Ataxerxes]

Illegal and lacking any profound justification. I've always thought the colonists' grievances were laughable, they were such a band of whiners and hypocrites.

Well, by the law in force at the time (British law) it was clearly illegal. As was pointed out earlier, virtually every revolution is illegal. Some of the grievances were laughable, but a desire for independence to set up your own government isn't that laughable. By that reasoning, most independence movements were laughable.

 

[kochman]

Illegal, yeah. Remember: not having a legal right doesn't mean that you don't have a moral right. The legality and morality of an action are different.

Very well put!
And, how can a previous poster not know how to make a BLT?