[fortheDeclaration]

Of course the word secession has to be used (referring to a political entity) lest the right of revolution be considered legimate for the slaves themselves. In the context we are concerned with, secession (from the Latin 'secedere' meaning 'to withdraw') - is a legal action, the renunciation/recission of a prior act. The slaves of Egypt, Africa America, Europe etc had no legal agreemnet to secede from.

That is why the Declaration doesn't refer to secession it refers to Revolution.

It deals with individual rights.

So the slaves of the South had every right to revolt based on the principles of the Declaration.

That is why Calhoun (and the other pro-Confederate posters on these threads) have to lie about what the Declaration referred to, individual liberty for all men.

But if the slave had it good as a slave, what was the beef that the Southerner had being part of the Union?

One thing these threads are good for is exposing the true nature of the political belief's of the Confederate supporters.

Your claims to being defenders of liberty are as hollow as the attempts to defend slavery and secession.

[TexConfederate1861]

And you are being shown for what YOU are. a Person advocating genocide & cultural-cleansing in the South.
All in the name of your warped sense of History.

It is people like you that would burn the South to the ground again, if you got the chance.

You should be posting on DU with all your liberal left-wing, affirmative action buddies!