Hacker News Reader

Comment by marcelsalathe | Hacker News Reader

Re D of I: I'm honestly curious: is that true? Evidence?

The assumption is that Britain regarded it as illegal in the same way that the USA would regard it as illegal if, say, the state of Texas was to declare independence today. That said, it's apparently a hot area of debate among people who study law:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15345511

Really interesting. Thanks for the link.

Texas is the only state that joined by treaty as an independent county, so it seems reasonable that Texas could maybe repudiate that treaty and leave. I think the example would have been better if they had picked one of the other 49 states, which were created from US territories and were part of the US before they were states. Clearly it is not legal for them to leave; there was even a big war fought to decide that question.

On the other hand apparently the Supreme Court disagrees with me [1], and only 33% of people polled think that Texas can secede [2].

[1] http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2012/11/constitution-chec...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_secession_movements

This is not what I have read before about the US constitution. It was very clear at the time the constitution was ratified by the States that they would keep their sovereignty and therefore have a right to secede. Why would it be otherwise, in a country that fought for its independence in the first place?

http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/secession-its-constitutional/

It's not because there was the Civil War that the Civil War outcome was Lawful. The Southern States had the right to secede and that right was not recognized by Lincoln.

At the risk of making an ad hominem attack, I seriously wouldn't take an op-ed in WND as a credible analysis of US Constitutional law.

Well that's what I could find in 5 mins online, but I'm sure there are other, better articles out there about that.

Heh, that's what I get for picking a state out of a hat. Thanks for the extra detail on how Texas joined the union!

Evidence: the American Revolutionary War.

> We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.

- Benjamin Franklin

At a minimum, all of the signers pf the Declaration were guilty of sedition, and most likely treason as well.

Sedition was a common law offense, and treason was defined as an affront to the monarch. Either would have sent most of the signers to the gallows.

Google, damnit. I mean, this isn't some obscure detail you're "curious" about. It's the founding event in US history.

Jeez, take a break. No need to swear. I did google it but couldn't find much.

Relative illegality with respect to GB. "Natural laws," self-evident truths transcend this.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_III_of_the_United_Kingdo...

The claimef violations of self evident "truths" in the declaration of independence include the right to commit genocide of the native population:

" He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."

Britain wasn't allowing the colonies to expand westward, and the Patriots were pissed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War

Notice the years this war was waged. The British were definitely not cool with the American colony seceding.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com