He flipped the meaning almost 180 degrees, and used it to justify the very opposite thing which the Declaration said.
Opposition to slavery is not "the very opposite" of opposition to tyranny. Arguably, it is complementary. Argue a case based on general principles, as Jefferson did, and you have to consider where those principles will lead you.
And strictly speaking, the Declaration isn't a state's rights document. The same principle that would allow a state government to break with an oppressive federal union would also allow groups within states (alienated Tennessee and Alabama highlanders, slaves) to break with a government that oppressed them. That is one reason why secession couldn't simply be an automatic right to be exercised whenever one wanted to.
Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn pointed out that the term "revolution" was a misnomer when applied to the American separation from Britain. He said the more accurate term was "American war of independence."
Scholars more familiar with the revolution have pointed out the ways in which it was a revolution. It certainly felt like one to those who were alive at the time, and it was more of a revolution than Britain's "Glorious Revolution."
So too, did South Carolinians in 1860 believe that what they were doing was making a revolution. "The tea has been thrown overboard - the revolution of 1860 has been initiated." -- Charleston Mercury, November 8, 1860. Bands even played La Marseillaise when the state seceded.
And you still haven't explained why, if Sumter became South Carolina property when the secession ordinance was passed, US bases in California wouldn't automatically become California property if that state seceded. That's not something you can just duck or skate away from. If the federal government has a legal right to its property in California even after secession, then it had a legal right to its property in South Carolina even after secession. If the federal government has no right to them but you would keep them and defend against attacks by the state anyway, then you are a hypocrite, and we can all pack up and go home.
>>DiogenesLamp wrote: “Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn pointed out that the term “revolution” was a misnomer when applied to the American separation from Britain. He said the more accurate term was “American war of independence.”
>>>x wrote: “Scholars more familiar with the revolution have pointed out the ways in which it was a revolution.”
Which scholars?
Mr. Kalamata
Don't substitute my meaning. The core, the Soul of the Declaration of Independence is the right to leave.
Lincoln in his commemoration presented it as a right for slaves to be free, which created an implied right for his armies to stop actual states from being free.
This absolutely reverses the purpose and intent of the Declaration of independence.
And strictly speaking, the Declaration isn't a state's rights document. The same principle that would allow a state government to break with an oppressive federal union would also allow groups within states (alienated Tennessee and Alabama highlanders, slaves) to break with a government that oppressed them.
In context, the Document applied to actual states. Whether or not it can be applied to smaller populations within states is another matter, because that is not what was happening in 1860. It was actual states, some of which were among the original 13 states, that were demanding their independence.
So we don't need to be invoking any theoretical Oranges when we are dealing with actual Apples.
And you still haven't explained why, if Sumter became South Carolina property when the secession ordinance was passed, US bases in California wouldn't automatically become California property if that state seceded.
Those who can reason don't need it to be explained to them. Those who can't, wouldn't understand the explanation anyways.