The Declaration of Independence was illegal hence the “Hang together or we shall certainly hang separately” comment.  The Founders knew they were skating a thin line in their argument, but they didn't care because their ultimate goal was to be their own masters.  They just wanted the best legal argument they could make to get as many people on board with them as possible.  Despite their efforts, many remained Loyalists to the bitter end.

It's ironic, Scout,  that you argue for Hobbes when the Colonists argued for Locke.  🙂

It is isn't it 🙂I find myself becoming ever more Hobbesian in outlook as I get older and both learn more and see more of the world.  Phid,I am not trying to make a relativist argument for morality.  In fact, I am not arguing morality at all, I am speaking of the real world effects of peoples and countries actions.  I do believe there is only one morality, that morality is often ignored in world events however.Lets take the case of the colonists.  Even if we accept the validity of their complaints, raising rebellion was illegal regardless of the flowery language used to dress it up.  Given the British defeat, does that not make any discussion of legality moot?  What was the moral dimension to the colonists complaints.  If I remember correctly, Locke did not make a moral argument, in his philosophy he based his ideas of the Social Contract and Property on the same Natural Law basis as Hobbes, he just drew different conclusions.The more I see and the older I get it is apparent that the only things we have, whether physical or spiritual, are what we are willing to fight for.  This is the whole basis of "might makes right," for if we are unwilling to fight for our liberties, property, and privileges then any moral justification for anything we do is irrelevant because someone who is willing to fight can take them away from us at any time.  The plight of European Jewry is a perfect example, the vast majority were not willing to fight to defend themselves and they suffered a horrible fate for it.  The heroes of the holocaust story are the Jews in Poland and Warsaw that stood up against Nazi tyranny even in the face of hopeless odds.  They may have been "wrong" in the Hobbesian sense because they lost, but they were 100% "right" by any Christian or Western moral standard for defending themselves.  Sadly, morality and moral judgements had nothing to do with their fate or even the salvation of those Jews that survived.  Western democracy fought Nazism not out of some sense of moral superiority, but because of enlightened self interest.  Yes, thee was a moral dimension, but it was not paramount.  Most people when faced with a choice between the use of force and survival and death because the use of force would violate their moral code will use force.  Those that choose to not use force we generally call martyrs or heroes and celebrate their choice but their is no realistic expectation that the vast majority will make that same choice.  If that were so then the argument could be made that a morality that requires self-immolation is no morality at all, morality should help us to survive not lead us to extinction.I may admire someone who makes a moral/idealistic stand for a deeply held belief and suffers for it; it does not mean I want to emulate them.Every time a subject like this comes up I am reminded of the overused quote from George Orwell that:

  I am probably perilously close to requiring this thread to be split, that is not my intent.  I just don't see how any discussion of the legality of the Revolution can avoid the notion that the the results negated any illegality.

Scout, if we are speaking in similar terms but using different language, then I will say I can see what you are saying.  This interpretation, however, is that legality is one thing and morality is another.  I do not consider them to be one in the same; legality is based on a ruling human power, and morality is based on something higher, something unchanging (which we call the natural law).  If Nazis deport Jews to gas chambers, that may be legal under the prevailing law, but immoral based on the natural law.  In the context of the American Revolution, the Colonists may have acted contrary to British law (ergo illegally) but not necessarily contrary to the natural law.  The reason I would not use "might makes right" in this context is because "right" implies (to me) a moral justification which isn't there.  The ability to make a human law can come from an enlightened community or a horrible despot and is therefore based on one's will, whether noble or not.So if you are separating issues along these lines, then I will agree with what you are saying.

That is what I am trying to say, although perhaps not as eloquently as it needs.Yes, I think that moral and legal are two separate issues.  Personally, I think the moral comes from God and the legal comes from man.  They are often not one and the same thing.  I also think that what is traditionally labeled Natural Law is distinct from divinely inspired morality, because ultimately, the thought and reasoning behind Natural Law is human inspired and not from the divine.I used the phrase "might makes right" as a rhetorical device and a phrase we are all familiar with not meaning to imply that the use of the word "right" implied any sense of justice or moral correctness to results achieved through force.