Replies

BK, he does not have the capacity to understand. He almost has himself convinced of his own argument. His mantra:

"I will simply reiterate my position, that people have natural rights, and among them is the right to leave a government which no longer serves their interests. This is the position articulated by the Declaration, and it is the one to which I adhere........ The central premise of the Declaration is that states have a right to leave.

My position is that the "central premise" of the Declaration of the thirteen united States of America was very specifically to declare that "these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown.........."

He glosses over the innumerated specific reasons and waters it down to the extent that it is applicable to the rights of the Southern States to secede from The Union. He goes so far to miss apply the DOI to the Civil War as to create a castle in the sand and even name it ("British Union").

Furthermore, he misses the point of the controversy over the Dred Scott decision, which is, the Power of the Supreme Court. Since that decision, as Lincoln warned, ..."the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."

Lincoln wasn't merely trying to hold the Union together, but he was trying to define/confine/limit the powers of the eminent tribunal. There was also that battle for the balance of powers in the government.

DiogenesUnion would do himself a favor if he were to return to the positions he held in his youth (Lincoln as an American hero) than to try to further lose himself in his newfound twisted and distorted perspective.

He glosses over the innumerated specific reasons and waters it down to the extent that it is applicable to the rights of the Southern States to secede from The Union.

I do not gloss over them. I note that the founders asserted the enumeration of them was due to "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind", and not because there is any specific requirement in natural law to articulate them. In simple terms, the Founders listed their reasons as a courtesy, and not because they were obliged to do so.

a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

You gloss over my position by not reading it correctly, or even attempting to understand it. One begins to think you do this because you are unable to do otherwise.