By 1775, the rebellion was in the full swing of things, my dude. From the King's perspective, the colonists threw a violent fit and then sent him a letter asking for him to basically back down. He had no reason to accept it.
Again, America was a colony of Britain, so it was represented by the whole of Parliament. That is how colonization works, and the Americans were no different from Britain's other colonies in that regard.
And, again, Britain, at no point, "deprived the citizens who had committed no crimes of their means of self-defense and protection." The colonists believed this was the case, but that was an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory, as
Bernard Bailyn pointed out. You can read some of the story in
Mencius Moldbug's essay on libertarianism.
But all of this - the conspiracy theory, the misunderstanding of how the English constitution works, - all obfuscates a single point:
There's no such thing as a right to be represented by your government. That's the root of our argument. You assume "no taxation without representation" is a given, and I don't. I suggest you actually focus on this if you want to actually get through to me this argument. Because, again, this is the core of our disagreement.
You're a traitor if you go against your government. Objectively speaking, the Founding Fathers were traitors and rebels, and I'd say that even if I thought their Revolution was justified. And yes, the "cake stealing" example is producing further demands.
Shay's Rebellion was put down through violent military insurrection and led to the establishment of a stronger, more centralized state. Shay and his supporters got off easily, yes, but to say that Congress conceded to them was kind of missing the wider context, which is running theme for you.
Okay, first of all, on the British mistreating American POWs while the latter was fair and good to them: that's neglecting the context. Because the British thought of the Americans as traitors to their own people, they were not treated well (though your claim of MUH HOLOCAUST is hysterical; word to the wise: comparing anything to the Holocaust or the Gulag will not tug at my heartstrings and will actually make me laugh at you). Americans treated British soldiers well for the most part because they saw themselves as a separate people fighting against the British. They treated Loyalists about the same as the British treated Patriots (i.e. not very well).
Yes, because
America has never done anything like that in its history.
All things that either never happened or were totally justified.
LOL No. No, it wasn't.
Well there's your problem them. Silly Protestants and their multiple denominations.
They are "related" in that they both involve fighting and bloodshed. But stating that "because they both involve bloodshed, they are the same thing, and therefore Vichy France must submit to Nazi Germany" is not a valid argument.
Again, no rebellion is a just war because no rebellion can be a war, period. To say "war of rebellion" is like saying "square circle" or "married bachelor." The
Just War Theory as Catholics have understood it always involves public authorities of foreign powers.
Culturally distinct they may be, they were British whether they considered themselves to be such or not. They existed under the crown, and there was never a time where they did not do so.
Right now, the entirety of the United States is on quarantine lockdown. Do you think that, if Hillary Clinton was elected in 2016, she wouldn't have done the same thing NZ did?
Where's this argument for the right to be represented in your government if you're a taxpayer? I don't recall a single Enlightenment thinker arguing for such a thing, so could you refresh my memory?