"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes;
The founders themselves warn that governments should not be changed for any old reason, or, shall we say, at pleasure. It then goes on and states;
But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
So it should only be done after a long train of abuses and usurpations. Well then what is a long train of abuses and usurpations? The founding fathers set the example for us. They endured 11 years. from when the stamp act was passed in 1765, of continuing and increasing abuses and usurpations, in a system of government where they had no representation, until they declared their independence.
Here's a comparison between the 1776 rebellion and the 1860 rebellion. RW = the Revolutionary War, ACW = the American Civil War.
The rebelling party was a full member of the body politic:
RW: no. ACW: yes
The rebelling party had willfully and freely entered into the government from which it was rebelling:
RW: no. ACW: yes
The rebelling party had access to full representation on the national stage:
RW: no. ACW: yes
The rebelling party had attempted to have their grievances redressed, and hostilities began before they declared separation and independence:
RW: yes. ACW: No
The rebelling party began their rebellion after losing a free and fair election in which they were a full participant:
RW: no. ACW: yes
The rebelling party made clear in their documents of separation that their main concern was protecting chattel slavery of the African race:
RW: no. ACW: yes
The rebelling party made clear their right to separation through war and de facto independence:
RW: yes. ACW: no
How are these conflicts remotely similar?
You have said point blank the founding fathers had no right to declare independence. See your own post 970 where you make the startling claim about the DOI: “There is no natural right of independence!”
Now you wish to invoke the men and the text that you have rejected in order to invent a valid opposite. From the point of view of the Lincolnian caucus I suppose that makes sense.
Sort of.
Very good post. From its reaction I see that it goes totally over their heads. But what can one expect from people who deliberately choose their words to obscure and obfuscate rather than clarify?