Title pretty much sums it up. 1776 yes you had your “reasons” but pretty much the same as citizens of California or Texas might use in 2019- basically, our mother country doesnt have our specific best interests at heart, they are trying to impose their ideals on us, and we have different ideals. No one in 1776 was experiencing human rights violations or anything like that. Assuming I am not operating from a faulty premise, I think most would agree CA or TX wanting out in 2019 would be seen as traitors, yet those in 1776 are seen as heroes- why?
ETA: if some kind moderator could add an “s” to treasonous in the title to make me look less dumb, that would be great!
I think John Harington answered this question for all time:
See also: “freedom fighter” vs. “terrorist”.
Oh, dear …
Not a good assumption.
Do you know the difference between a state and a colony?
“Taxation without representation is tyranny”
In 1776, the colonists were subjects of the British crown. While there was a Parliament, we did not elect any representatives to it, and had no say in how we were ruled.
Today, California, Texas and the U.S. are all representative democracies. I may not agree with all of the decisions made by the Federal government, but I elected Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi and Kamala Harris, and I know that they have input into those decisions. I didn’t vote for the current president, but I voted for the previous one, and my state played a role in ensuring his election.
That’s not to say that there is no room for improvement in the way we are governed. But I’m not sure that we have reached the point experienced by the founders: "…whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of [the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Yes I do know the difference, not sure how it is relevant to the OP though.
And you equate unwanted taxes with human rights violations?
The 13 colonies had no representation in the English parliament at the time, they asked for it, were denied, so they declared independence to govern themselves.
The southern states were (over)represented in the USA’s government, they didn’t like the way the other states voted and so they tried to secede.
You can’t have a democracy if the losing side of each election will just create their own country. If you lose, you deal with it.
I don’t really see much of a parallelism between the 2 situations really.
I think it could be argued depending on the party of the current President, either CA or TX could say the same, the govt is not a govt for their people, and they have the same right to abolish it? That the current president is of a different party then their elected governor? Wouldn’t CA citizens of 2019 say under Trump, their safety and happiness is threatened?
Um, the British Crown in 1776 did view the rebellious colonists as traitors. And if a modern-day TX or CA secession movement did succeed in establishing an independent state, Texans or Californians a hundred years from now would look on the secessionists as heroic liberators.
Because pretty much any kind of secession or independence movement will be labeled treason by those whose authority it is rejecting, and if successful, will be labeled a heroic feat of liberation by the heirs of the “traitors”/“liberators”. Not sure why the OP seems to find this so mysterious.
The OP is asking why US citizens in 2019 would find CA or TX secessionists wrong, but those in 1776 heroes- my mistake for the lack of clarity.
Benedict Arnold is infamous for his treason, Ben Franklin is praised for his? (yes, not for same reasons).
No shit, guy! The last thing Texas needs is an administration who puts concentration camps in our great State, nowhere in accordance with our ideals. Let’s rebel against the… (check notes) … Republicans!
It’s not “Whenever any government official…” it’s “Whenever any Form of Government…”
In a representative democracy, we expect that the officials in power will not always be the ones who represent our particular point of view. But in the U.S., we have put in place a system of checks and balances designed to ensure that our rights are still preserved. As Frodo said, if you broke up the country every time an election didn’t go your way, there would be no democracy, and eventually you’d have anarchy.
Do you think that the Form of Government that currently governs the U.S. is so destructive to the rights of Californians or Texans that it needs to be changed? What are you suggesting as an alternative?
The OP is meant to address the hypocrisy of thinking what happened in 1776 is a good thing, but if same basic thing happened now, it would be wrong.
Yes, that was obvious. People have pointed out why they’re fundamentally not the same. The 13 colonies were colonies, with no say in their government, not locally, not centrally. California and Texas not agreeing with federal policy does not compare.
If you want to argue that any subdivision of any nation should be free to secede, you should start the discussion with that instead of trying to play gotcha.
Or, imagine it is 2039- Republicans have been in charge for the last twenty plus years, resulting in a large party shift which now has 49 majority republican states, and only California as liberal- all non- CA liberals got sick of their home state and moved there. US is now all abortions illegal, all guns legal, death penalty standard for any murder, illegal immigrants persecuted, etc. California still has elected officials, but they have no effect on any US policy as it is always 49-1. Everything the US now stands for is nothing CA citizens stand for.
Would they then be wrong to want secession?
Not really gotcha if the gotcha is noted upfront.
Not seeing the difference in no representation at all vs. representation that is ineffective due to being outvoted- if the US goes to 49-1 republican vs democrat states and stays there, isn’t impotent representation the same as none? They would have a say in road paving issues but not real matters then, and should be ok with that?
I really don’t think any more complicated explanation is required than the natural tendency to think that our forefathers rebelling against sovereign authority to create the state we have now was good, while our contemporaries rebelling against our existing sovereign authority is bad.
Sure, there are differences of policy and principle between the two situations, but if you’re asking for the predominant reason why Americans in general tend to regard them differently, I think John Harington’s answer is essentially correct.
Nor do I think that that attitude is necessarily hypocritical. We can have a positive view of a historical revolution because from our perspective it worked out okay, while still being prudently opposed to launching a new revolution that we do not know will work out okay.
It’s not wrong to want secession. So, the answer is no.
Fair enough, you have a differing opinion excellently stated that I cannot argue with. Only thing though, it is similar but not similar to Brexit- there doesn’t have to automatically be a war for a state to secede. The GDP would shrink and other things of that sort of course, which the US wouldn’t allow probably.
You may have skipped over this.
Not at all- those are reasons/excuses/justifications by a group of people about to commit treason- most criminals can come up with reasons for their crimes- are you stating just because this was written, everything in it is 100% accurate, unbiased and irrefutable? You don’t think Britain could refute or explain the reason for some of these?