How can revolution be "illegal?"

[smiling_bandit]

“Dr. Benjamin Franklin: A rebellion is always legal in the first person, such as “our rebellion.” It is only in the third person - “their rebellion” - that it becomes illegal.”

@Captain_Amazing

Wasn’t that Max Weber’s definition of a state?

And is pretty widely accepted in principle as well as in theory.

[usedtobe]

There are two “crimes”, which, if successful, will not/cannot be prosecuted:

Rebellion
Suicide

One removes the prosecutor, the other the perpetrator.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Hershele_Ostropoler

I’m fairly sure the only people who define “government” that way are Libertarians and people who don’t realize it’s a loaded definition.

It’s not a million miles away from the Montevideo Convention definition (of a nation-state), which has the status of an international norm today:

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

[Tom_Tildrum]

@Human_Action

They got off pretty easy. President Johnson issued a blanket amnesty for all but high-ranking officers and elected officials; to claim amnesty, former Confederates had to take an oath of loyalty to the Union and the Constitution, and agree to obey laws pertaining to emancipation of slaves.

Between then and Christmas 1868, further amnesties were issued, that covered all Confederates, including Jefferson Davis, who was awaiting trial for treason at the time. There were three prosecutions for war crimes, and one man, Major Henry Wirz, was executed.

The U.S. was less forgiving in other cases, such as the Whiskey Rebellion.

Note also that John Brown was hanged (before the War) for treason, murder, and inciting a slave insurrection.

[Chimera]

There is no State that wants the means of it’s violent demise to be legal. That would be a suicide pact against Public Order, as violent protest and mayhem could not be legally suppressed as long as as a claim was made that it was “Revolution”.

[Czarcasm]

@Chimera

There is no State that wants the means of it’s violent demise to be legal. That would be a suicide pact against Public Order, as violent protest and mayhem could not be legally suppressed as long as as a claim was made that it was “Revolution”.

And do you suppose for two seconds that the “Revolution” that took over a country so stupid as to allow such a thing wouldn’t themselves instantly pass a law making a violent overthrow of their regime illegal?

[BrotherCadfael]

From Shogun:

@James Clavell

“There are no ‘mitigating circumstance’ when it comes to rebellion against a sovereign lord.”

“Unless you win.”

Toranaga looked intently at him. Then laughed uproariously. He said something to Hiro-Matsu through his laughter and Hiro-Matsu nodded.

“Yes, Mister Foreigner With The Impossible Name, yes. You named the one mitigating factor.”

[Stanislaus]

Charles I’s defence at his trial rested on precisely this point - that those trying him had no standing or authority to do so:

@Charles I

I would know by what power I am called hither … I would know by what authority, I mean lawful; there are many unlawful authorities in the world; thieves and robbers by the high-ways … Remember, I am your King, your lawful King, and what sins you bring upon your heads, and the judgement of God upon this land. Think well upon it, I say, think well upon it, before you go further from one sin to a greater … I have a trust committed to me by God, by old and lawful descent, I will not betray it, to answer a new unlawful authority; therefore resolve me that, and you shall hear more of me.
I do stand more for the liberty of my people, than any here that come to be my pretended judges … I do not come here as submitting to the Court. I will stand as much for the privilege of the House of Commons, rightly understood, as any man here whatsoever: I see no House of Lords here, that may constitute a Parliament … Let me see a legal authority warranted by the Word of God, the Scriptures, or warranted by the constitutions of the Kingdom, and I will answer."

There is no legal answer - there was in fact no-one with power to bring the King to trial. As that precise constitutional point was one of the root causes of the Civil War that had brought Charles to this pass, however, it was unlikely that it would succeed as an argument now. His reliance on it as a legal strategy is a neat demonstration of both his stubborn adherence to his principles and his disregard for practical consequences. Which in this case, were quite severe.