DISQUS

But if you think [the American Revolution] was [legitimate], then you’re pretty clearly committed to the proposition that a violent overthrow of the American government this afternoon would be legitimate.

If the people of the federal polity, either by a direct vote, by the vote of a convention specially elected for the purpose of deciding such a question or by some other overwhelmingly obvious display of rebuke, were to decide to alter or abolish the federal government, and the officers of the federal government refused to comply, then, yes, the violent overthrow of the government would be legitimate. I am uncertain what could cause such a series of events today — in practical terms the political sentiments of the American people make the amendment procedure of the federal constitution is a much lower bar to cross.

Alternately, were some territory of United States comprising a polity distinct from and non-coterminous with the federal polity to demand self rule and the US refuse, that territory would be justified in violent separation. My understanding is that such polities have not encountered this resistance, and it has instead been the reverse — for instance, I believe Palau chose to remain dependent until it could negotiate a favorable terms as an Associated State.

So, no, barring something quite unexpected, believing the American Revolution was legitimate does not logically mandate that revolution this afternoon would be legitimate.