07/30/2026
The 1776 Act of Treason: A Fun Historical Fact Most People Don’t Know
Here’s a fun historical fact that almost nobody talks about.
When the American colonies signed the United States Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, they were not creating a legally recognized country. Under British law at the time, they were committing treason.
The colonies were subjects of George III and therefore bound by the legal order of the British Crown. Declaring independence was, in strict legal terms, an act of rebellion against the Crown. Under British law—including the long-standing framework established by the Treason Act 1351—rejecting allegiance to the Crown constituted treason.
And yet today many people believe the United States became independent in 1776 simply because it declared itself so.
That isn’t actually how it happened.
🔷Independence Didn’t Exist in 1776
The war that followed that declaration is known as the American Revolutionary War. It lasted from 1775 until 1783.
But independence did not legally exist until the British Crown formally recognized it in the Treaty of Paris (1783). That treaty is what ended the war and acknowledged the United States as an independent free state.
This is where popular history intentionally gets the story wrong.
The United States did not suddenly appear as an independent state in 1776 simply because a declaration was signed. The act of declaration was rebellion against the Crown until it was formally settled 7 years later.
Declarations do not create lawful political orders.
🔷The Myth of “Winning Independence by Force”
Another common belief is that the United States simply defeated Britain militarily and forced independence.
Reality is more complicated.
Britain still possessed vast military and naval capacity at the time. The empire continued to dominate global trade and controlled territories around the world. The war became politically and financially costly, and Britain ultimately chose to settle and recognize American independence through treaty.
At any point, Britain could have regrouped militarily and reasserted its clear legal and overwhelming military authority over the colonies—but it simply chose not to.
🔷Why This Matters for Canada
Canada’s constitutional structure was created by the British North America Act 1867, which constitutionally established the then separate colonies into a dominion of the monarchy with the sovereign as head of state. That exact same structure was later reaffirmed by the Queen through the Constitution Act 1982.
FUN FACT: Contrary to popular belief, the 1982 Constitution Act did not create a sovereign Canada—it simply reaffirmed Canada’s status as a dominion under the monarchy with the Queen as head of state.
Because of this framework, Canada exists within a constitutional order derived from the authority of the Crown. All institutions within Canada—Parliament, provincial legislatures, and the courts—operate inside that constitutional structure, not above it.
This is where modern discussions about separation often become confused.
🔷The Jurisdiction Problem
Many people argue that provincial separation is legally possible because the Supreme Court ruled on the matter and Parliament later passed the Clarity Act following the decision in the Reference re Secession of Quebec.
But this argument assumes something that is rarely examined: JURISDICTION.
Courts only possess authority within the constitutional framework that created them. Their role is to interpret and apply the law—not to dismantle the constitutional order itself.
In Canada, the judiciary derives its authority from the same constitutional system established by the British North America Act and maintained by the 1982 Constitution Act. That system explicitly preserves the monarchy as the head of state and the foundation of the constitutional structure.
If the constitutional order itself rests on that structure, then the courts cannot logically possess jurisdiction to authorize its dissolution. They cannot grant authority to break apart the constitutional framework from which their own authority originates.
Yet modern political arguments often assume that a court ruling or federal legislation—such as the Clarity Act—can unilaterally authorize the breakup of the country, a power that is clearly beyond their jurisdiction.
🔷The Lesson History Actually Teaches
The story of 1776 shows something that modern political debates intentionally ignore.
Declarations do not create lawful states.
Third party or de facto recognition does not create lawful states.
Votes do not create lawful states.
Court rulings do not create lawful states.
Political systems rest on constitutional authority. When people ignore the foundations of that authority, they risk misunderstanding the very system they claim to be changing.
And history shows that those misunderstandings can have enormous consequences.
🔷Why the Alberta Prosperity Project Petition Is Treason Under Common Law
The historical lesson from 1776 applies directly to modern attempts to separate Alberta from Canada.
The Alberta Prosperity Project (APP) encourages citizens to sign petitions aimed at dissolving or seceding from the constitutional framework of Canada. Under standing common law, this is more than a political statement—it constitutes an outright act of treason.
Here’s why:
Pre-1603 lawful common law – The Crown’s authority and the principles of allegiance are rooted in English common law before the fraudulent 1603 succession. Any attempt to undermine lawful sovereign authority is treason.
Post-1603 de facto common law – The succession in 1603, which brought James I to the throne, was structurally illegitimate, but it established a de facto system of authority. Common law recognizes rebellion against that system as treason, because the existing structures of the Crown continue to exercise administrative authority on behalf of the lawful pre-1603 Crown.
By signing petitions aimed at dismantling Canada’s constitutional structure—a dominion under the monarchy—participants are actively undermining both the lawful and de facto sovereign authority. From a common-law perspective, this is treasonous.
In other words, anyone signing the APP petition is repeating the same legal offense that, in 1776, made the American colonists guilty of treason—only today the sovereign authority is intact, and the law has not been suspended.
This is not a political opinion—it is an application of centuries of common-law principle, which recognizes both lawful pre-1603 authority and the ongoing force of de facto administrative power.
Anyone relying on “constitutional legal advice” from a gun salesman named Mitch Sylvestre, a roadside burger cook named Chris Scott, or the two so-called lawyers Jeffrey Rath and Keith Wilson need to think very carefully about what they are actually signing. Both Rath and Wilson are bound to the Bar and to the Crown, yet they continue to give misleading legal counsel to those participating in the APP petition. The fact that these individuals are collecting your personal information to present your identity to the Crown is even more alarming. Truthfully, the only real traitors are the ones pushing the separation movement, not the people being misled with false legal claims.
Final Note: Only the true lawful heir to the Crown has the authority to stop corruption, remove corrupt officials, install people of genuine character into governance. Treasonous separatist movements cannot do any of this. If the people want real protection, and real change, they must stop wasting time following after Danielle Smith’s controlled opposition groups and get behind the one who actually has the power to deliver it.
