Your argument is essentially this: The south had a “natural right” to secede in order to perpetuate and extend the institution of chattel slavery. The suggestion that a group of people have the “natural right” to deny the natural rights of others is absurd.
No founder, nor any natural rights theorist; not Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Bacon, Blackstone, or Locke ever argued for an unqualified, unlimited right to political seperation. What you describe as a “Natural Right” is simply anarchy or tyranny.
No founder, nor any natural rights theorist; not Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Bacon, Blackstone, or Locke ever argued for an unqualified, unlimited right to political seperation. What you describe as a “Natural Right” is simply anarchy or tyranny.”
No, my argument is essentially this: We have a right,Natural or not,to Secede from New England politics. You may wish the continued debate at your own peril. My choice is to Secede.Plain enough?
That’s a long way from *Live Free or Die*
That argument about it being all about about slavary has wore thin. It was about power and money.
If and when the Federal government decides to use it’s strength against the states, you better be singing a different tune, Brother. Otherwise join the flock.
You mean like prison guards? Ooops.
Wrong.
Not "a" group, not ANY group of people, but the authoritative sovereign group of people called the state. And thank God we have states or else we'd be in a heap of a lot of more trouble than we are.