But such an alleged unlimited "right" does not exist, never did, not in 1776, not in 1787 nor in 1860.
So regardless of how often, or how loudly, you proclaim it, such an unlimited right was never, in fact, proclaimed by our Founders.
Except, except under two conditions:
In 1776, our Founders certainly had no "mutual consent", but they just as certainly did have many serious breaches of contract by the Brits, including a formal declaration of war against colonists, and actual waging of war by the Brits.
These breaches are listed in detail in the Declaration of Independence.
By stark contrast, Fire-Eater secessionists in 1860 had neither "mutual consent", nor any serious breach of contract they could point to.
Instead, they seceded, as you so often proclaim their right, "at pleasure", meaning without any particular legal justification.
And while "at pleasure" may be plenty enough reason for DiogenesLamp, it was never considered legal justification by our Founders.
Still, regardless of the legalities -- or illegalities -- of 1861 declarations of secession, none of them caused Civil War.
Instead, Civil War was provoked, started and declared by the Confederacy against the United States long before even one Confederate soldier was killed directly in battle with any Union force, and before any Union army invaded a single Confederate state.
So tell us why you can't grasp such simple facts.
I don't even understand what you are trying to say here. We come at this thing from completely different foundational assumptions.
There are no "limits" or "conditions" on a natural right. It is inherent, granted by nature and nature's God, and no one may gainsay it.
Read some John Locke, or Samuel Rutherford. Read some of the natural law philosophers our founders studied when they asserted their independence, contrary to England's consent and contrary to England's established law.
DegenerateLamp’s assertion is framed as a strawman. If you look at it’s assertion sans context it makes sense: “the right to form a free and independent nation is NOT DEPENDENT on whether you agree with their morals or not.”
Should a person find a corner of the earth that isn’t inhabited and wishes to set up their own little empire they should have the “right” to do so (I’m deliberately leaving out the natural consequences of such an endeavor if it is toxic to its neighbors).
The part he conveniently leaves out is the context to which the saner amongst us have been speaking. There is no right to form a nation at another nation’s expense. None. The only (singular) exception to this is the formation of a state through force of arms. That is what the slavers attempted (and failed) to do.
Like all lefties, DL likes to split hairs. I bet it’s got a yuge bald spot!