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.