Replies

Not all of the Founders were slave owners, and not all of those who were were happy with slavery. Benjamin Rush, Francis Hopkinson, and others owned slaves at one point in their lives and perhaps continued owning slaves but they started abolition societies. By the time many of the signers had died, slavery was indeed illegal in their states, often by their own efforts.

But you are rushing off in two opposite directions. You're praising the Declaration as the "let there be light" of a nation's existence" and arguing that its meaning is circumscribed by its origins as a narrow, shallow document signed by slave owners.

You're admitting the great impetus that the Declaration of Independence gave to emancipation movement, yet somehow arguing that it was illegitimate or irrelevant. But clearly, if the Declaration did encourage anti-slavery movement, one can't argue that whatever it was that encouraged opposition to slavery somehow wasn't a part of its meaning.

You're admitting that the Declaration gives support to slaves who would seek freedom. You're not making reference to any support secessionist slaveowners would derive from the Declaration. And you're assuming that this leaves you with of an argument, because you can throw out a Latin phrase like "tu quoque."

I don't know if I missed the beginning of the argument and don't know just what it is that you're talking about, or if you're irrational and just talking in circles.

But you are rushing off in two opposite directions. You're admitting the great impetus that the Declaration of Independence gave to emancipation movement, yet somehow arguing that it was illegitimate or irrelevant.

No, i'm arguing that it was ex post facto. That it produced that result later, and that that result was not part of it's initial purpose. The Dichotomy is inherent in the document, not in my Understanding of it. If it looks like it goes in two different directions, that's because it does. :)

You're not making reference to any support secessionist slaveowners would derive from the Declaration.

You're kidding, right? Virtually my entire argument revolving around the Declaration of Independence, is that it overtly and quite demonstrably supports the rights of a slave holding populace breaking away from a larger union.

That is exactly the purpose for which it was written. .

And you're assuming that this leaves you with of an argument, because you can throw out a Latin phrase like "tu quoque."

"Tu quoque" comes up so often, I hardly think there is any cleverness left to it. It has become mundane, especially as regards this subject.

The primary argument put forth by the Union Apologists is this: We had a right to do something bad, because those Southern States were doing something bad.

Introducing the issue of slavery, is an automatic "tu quoque" because it focuses the discussion on what someone did that was "bad" rather than whether people had a right to leave or not.

Also the argument "We were justified in invading because of Slavery", is also an "ex post facto" argument, which is some more Latin lingo for ya. :)