It's treason, then

...

If only they had some other reasons for revolution that they wrote down in some kind of declaration.

I'm Orthodox

>Napoleon
>Republican

"How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty are among the drivers of Negroes?"

But you only attacked two reasons for the revolution. There were others. I'm not arguing whether or not the revolution was warranted, I'm arguing that the colonists had other issues with their mother country which caused them to revolt.

That, and most Americans didn't own slaves. As in, the vast majority.

Did the vast majority see the "self-evident" rights that apply to "all men" as applying to black people? If not, then their lofty "self-evident" ideals aren't really about themselves, they're just a pretense.

Of course they were just a pretense. Doesn't mean the revolution wasn't justified for those other reasons. However, I'd say the fact that some states had bans on slavery that quickly followed independence means abolition had support among the population.

It wasn't justified for the pretense though since the presence wasn't even enacted. Literally Athenian democracy was more egalitarian than American democracy, because people who didn't own property could vote.

You can't rebel against your masters on the pretense that all men are equal, and then keep a ton of men disenfranchised. That's not justification, because it wasn't enacted, it was just a pretense.

>I'd say the fact that some states had bans on slavery that quickly followed independence means abolition had support among the population.
>wasn't even enacted

But the colonists didn't rebel under "all men are equal" alone, which is what I'm trying to get through your skull. Look at the Declaration of Independence, a cursory glance will tell you that "muh equality" wasn't the only or even primary reason behind the goal of independence.

The issue is that the colonies had basically governed themselves for a hundred years, and were not willing to accept the supremacy of parliament. They wanted to go back to the system of benign neglect from before the french Indian war.

All the other issues either stemmed from that or from the British garrisons

>some states had bans on slaver
Not one

It's the basis for everything else they demand though.

Which they really didn't have any right to anymore than the Confederate States who rebelled against the North did.

>Not one
How hard do you work to keep yourself this willfully ignorant?

Wew, thank you Mr. Colonial Revolutionary for telling us what their "demands" were based off of.

You're grasping at straws because the only cause you were prepared to rebut was egalitarianism, but that wasn't even the motivator behind the revolution, as per the words of the framers of the new country. It was unrelated to other causes, such as garrisoning troops in colonial homes during peacetime, or the king vetoing laws the continentals wanted passed.

These are the states where slavery was least prominent and a while after Independence. It represents but a fraction of the total slaves.

>not one
>No, that's wrong, you dumbass.
>W-Well it was just a fraction of the slaves a-anyways

The entire basis of the Declaration is that, that's what is used as the cornerstone for what follows, since it's what is used to brush aside any idea of duty toward the king.

>These are the states where slavery was least prominent and a while after Independence
Nobody's arguing otherwise, but you just told me the states in blue didn't fucking exist, so don't try to be cute.

^^^^^^^^^^

No, the basis of the revolution is that "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government"

They then listed the long train of abuses. And then they overthrew the government.

No, this was not directly after, it was several years after, it was not part of their secessionist law, and in many of these cases, the abolition of slavery was hardly in total (in Pennsylvania, the last slaves wouldn't be freed until the 1840's, for instance).

It's too bad you didn't challenge "directly after" or "part of secessionist law", you challenged

>some states had bans on slavery that quickly followed independence

Which is objectively true, unless you're planning on quibbling over the definition of "quickly".

Dude, these territories abolished slavery before even starting to assemble a unified government; the Constitution didn't even get ratified until 1790.

And almost all these abuses are vague nonsense

>he has refused to give his consent for laws most wholesome for the public good

for instance

Of
>for cutting off our trade will all parts of the world
This is just fabrication

or

>he has abdicating his government here[...]by waging war against us
wtf. So if you rebel, he renounces authority if he fights the rebellion?

>almost all
>you've only directly addressed five this entire thread
>there are over two dozen

>regulation is synonymous with ban

Most states ratified it by 87-88, it was only Massachusetts that took until 1790

Several of these are outright lies, I'm not enough of a scholar to be sure of the truth of most of them, but isn't that rather significant?

Also, that second one I know for a fact isn't fabrication.

>1 The Navigation Act, first adopted in 1651, and extended in 1660, declared that no merchandise of the English plantations should be imported into England in any other than English vessels. There were also restrictive laws respecting the manufactures of the colonies, and their domestic commerce. For the benefit of English manufacturers, the colonists were forbidden to export, or introduce from one colony into another, hats and woollens of domestic manufacture; and hatters were forbidden to have, at one time, more than two apprentices. They were not allowed to import sugar, rum, and molasses, without paying an exorbitant duty, and forbade the erection of certain iron works.
>The narrow, restrictive policy of Great Britain, begun as early as the middle of the seventeenth century, had a tendency to repress, rather than to encourage, the commerce of the colonies. Instead of allowing them free commercial intercourse with other nations, the home government did all in its power to compel the colonists to trade exclusively with Great Britain.1 In 1764, the British Minister, under a pretence of preventing illegal traffic between the British colonies and foreign American possessions, made the naval commanders revenue officers--directed them to take the usual custom-house oaths--and to conform to the custom-house regulations. By this means a profitable trade with the Spanish and French colonies in America, which the colonists had long uninterruptedly enjoyed, (although in violation of the old Navigation Act,) was destroyed. This trade was advantageous to Great Britain as well as to the colonies; but as the enforcement of these laws was a part of the system of "reforming the American governments,"2 began by Bute, the advantages to England were over-looked. Under this act, many seizures of vessels were made ; and the Americans were so distressed and harassed, that they were obliged to abandon the trade.

Every state listed in the image banned slavery on the books well before 1787, so I don't even know how that's relevant to the argument of lack of expediency.

>I'm not enough of a scholar
No fucking shit?

Congrats on moving the goalposts.

>Which they really didn't have any right to anymore than the Confederate States who rebelled against the North did.

Says who? a group of people they had no say in electing declares that they are the supreme law over the colonies? The colonies already had local assemblies.

Furthermore, parliaments actions were in violation of the established rights of Englishmen, which were known by all and codified in English law. Such outrages were included in the declaration of independence.