[rockrr]

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!

[BroJoeK]

rockrr: "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.' "

And, it's not just a straw man, it's also a huge red herring.
That's because it implicitly asserts, and so is argued on the grounds that Lincoln's Union started Civil War to suppress the alleged unlimited "right of separation".

That's the reason pro-Confederates keep throwing this out.
They of course didn't believe a word of it, as demonstrated by the Confederate war to prevent western Virginia from seceding Virginia.
But they hope it works to force d*mn-dumb-Yankees into arguing that our Founders shouldn't have declared independence in 1776, since they had no natural "right to secede".

Two general points can be made in response:

1. In fact, our Founders never declared an unlimited "right to secede", but only acted after many years, when forced by necessity.

2. Regardless of any "right to secede", neither secession nor forming a new Confederacy started Civil War in 1861.
   It is even conceivable that had Jefferson Davis understood his own best interests, and delayed the start of war by, say, a year or two, he could have avoided it all-together or won it after more careful preparations.
   But Davis didn't.
   Instead he rushed into war at his earliest opportunity.
   That's what makes DiogenesLamp's argument over his alleged unlimited "right of separation" not only a straw man, but also a huge red herring.