“So, in Post 186 you wrote: “I still am waiting to see what moral right there was for the British colonials seceding from their mother government” to which . . .”
I’m not following your thinking. Post 186 was not mine.
jeffersondem wrote: I’m not following your thinking. Post 186 was not mine.
Kriskrinkle replies: I slipped up in my rush to get on with other things. I'll start over. I hope I have the sequence correct.
1. Pelham Post 214: " I still am waiting to see what moral right there was for the British colonials seceding from their mother government."
2. Kriskrinkle Post 230 responding to Pelham Post 214: "And they used the Declaration of Independence to convey the moral right for their rebellion. What parts of the Declaration do you find immoral?" (Bolded because it's important here.)
3. jeffersondem Post 250 chiming in to respond to Kriskrnkle Post 230: "Arguably, referencing slavery as a justification for the Declaration of Independence was immoral."
(I don't believe Pelham ever responded, but things happen so I have no quarrel with that.)
4. Kriskrinkle Post 257 responding to jeffersondem Post 250: "You apparently know more about this than I, so give me a convincing argument."
(Because I don't see a reference to slavery in the DOI.)
5. jeffersondem Post 270 responding to Kriskrinkle Post 257 citing an excerpt from Lord Dunmore's Proclamation of November 7, 1775 apparently as the start of convincing argument in support of the position that the DOI words “He has excited domestic insurrections” means slave insurrections.
6. Kriskrinkle Post 289 responding to jeffersondem Post 270: I messed up the first paragraph.
In the second paragraph I wrote: "As to Lord Dunmore’s Proclamation, he required “every Person capable of bearing Arms, to resort to His MAJESTY’S STANDARD” and declared “all indented Servants, Negroes, or others, (appertaining to Rebels,) free that are able and willing to bear Arms, they joining His MAJESTY’S Troops”. On the face of it, that doesn’t seem like a call for insurrection (although an inference might be taken), but instead a call to join the forces of one side in an already ongoing conflict. And it wasn’t addressed only to slaves, nor to all slaves."
In the third paragraph I wrote: "In short (because I’ve other things to do), as far as I can tell, you haven’t presented anything convincing."
7. Finally, my position noted in bold in 2 above is "And they used the Declaration of Independence to convey the moral right for their rebellion. ( And I asked of Pelham: "What parts of the Declaration do you find immoral?" )
After that I got enmeshed in the tangle or whether or not the DOI referenced slavery as a justification.
So, getting back to what I was really interested in, my position that they used the DOI to convey the moral right for their rebellion, the question is: Even if, or stipulating for the sake of argument that, the DOI references slavery as a justification, does such a reference, not an outright statement, invalidate the DOI as a whole as something that conveys the moral right for their rebellion?
Pelham (if you wish)? jeffersondem? Bueller? Anyone?