Ther are three major differences between the 1775 and 1861.

1:  The people who revolted in 1775 were totally disfranchised; they had
no political power; no representation in the Brit. gov.  They had no
rights, no constitutional protections, and no one from the American
colonies served in the Brit.  gov.  In the US southerners had dominiated
the national gov. since 1789.  The Confed. Pres. had been in various
cabinets and in the Senate.  No American had served in any British gov. 
Five of 9 Supreme Court Justices were southerners; No Americans served
on any  English court.  Remember, the slogan of the revolution was "no
taxation without representation."  The American had no representation. 
Hard to argue that the South was not very well represented in the
American Gov.

2:  Jefferson justified revolution on the grounds that people had to be
represented in the gov. (which southerners were in 1861) and that
revolution was only justified after a "long train of abuses."  Tell  us
what were the "long train of abuses" that the South suffered?

3:  The Americans of 1775 had no mechanism to protect their rights
because they had no political power; the Southeners had vast poltiical
power, including a perpetual veto (to this day) of any constitutional
amendment.  The Southerners chose to reject the political process which
had served them well. Ironically, had the South not seceded it is
unlikely that slavery would have ended until the late 20th century, if
then.  


Paul Finkelman
President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
     and Public Policy
Albany Law School
80 New Scotland Avenue
Albany, New York   12208-3494

518-445-3386 
[log in to unmask]
>>> [log in to unmask] 04/09/07 11:22 PM >>>
As best I can remember, prior to the war of northern aggression, a bunch
of  
ragtags turned against their mother country (England) and fought for
their  
freedom.  The southerners did no different.



************************************** See what's free at
http://www.aol.com.