Can’t agree with you. Continuing slavery flew in the face of the Declaration. Fundamentally, both revolutions were against a “foreign” centralized government meddling with the domestic affairs of the aggrieved populations, neither of which viewed slaves as other than chattel. I think the revolution was ultimately to our benefit, but we romanticize it by pretending that the Founders really believed “all men are created equal.” It’s just not true, as evidenced by the fact that the slaves were not emancipated at once. If the principles expressed in the Declaration are the standard by which we deem a revolt justified, then to a certain extent the Declaration condemns the very revolution it announced. No, I see no moral difference. Both the colonies and the south retained slavery for economic reasons.
IOW, you believe the Dred Scott decision was legally correct.
If the principles expressed in the Declaration are the standard by which we deem a revolt justified, then to a certain extent the Declaration condemns the very revolution it announced.
True, and the Founders were well aware of it. They just didn't know how to resolve the contradiction safely.
They expected, reasonably enough based on trends at the time, that the problem would resolve itself within a generation or two, without bloodshed. They had absolutely no way of knowing that slavery would suddenly become wildly profitable, with the result that getting rid of it became more difficult over time, not less.