Consider that the Declaration urges that "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." Yet you insist that while slavery is prominently mentioned in the official Southern statements of secession, economics was the real reason. If you are accurate, that obscurity takes Southern secession away from the requirement of the Declaration that the causes be stated.
Moreover, the Declaration states that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This principle makes slavery ineligible as a legitimate basis for secession.
As for whether the North had a right to oppose secession, the Declaration did not claim that Britain had no right to try to keep America as a colony. So why do you insist that the North had no right to try to preserve the Union?
True. There doesn't need to be. The states do not derive their sovereign powers from the constitution. The federal government does...and its powers are only those delegated to it by the sovereign states. So if the constitution is silent on the matter, that means it is a right reserved by the states.
and neither do the terms of the Declaration of Independence did not support Southern secession.
Sure it does. If anything, the states had far more right to secede than the colonies did. The states were recognized as sovereign. The colonies were not. The states also had the precedent of the colonies seceding from the British Empire.
Consider that the Declaration urges that "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." Yet you insist that while slavery is prominently mentioned in the official Southern statements of secession, economics was the real reason. If you are accurate, that obscurity takes Southern secession away from the requirement of the Declaration that the causes be stated.
No it doesn't. Pointing out that the Northern states had violated the compact between them by violating the fugitive slave clause of the constitution establishes the legal case. Yet despite that, Georgia, South Carolina (via Rhett's Address) and Texas went on at length about the economic causes. Texas also mentioned the malicious refusal to provide border security which was a federal responsibility.
Moreover, the Declaration states that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This principle makes slavery ineligible as a legitimate basis for secession.
Obviously not since the 13 colonies all had slavery when they seceded from the British Empire. Furthermore, the Declaration of Secess.....errr.....Independence also says that government derives its legitimacy from the CONSENT of the governed.
In fact, President Jefferson Davis cited this in his first inaugural address "the American idea that governments rest upon the consent of the governed, and that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish governments whenever they become destructive of the ends for which they were established."
As for whether the North had a right to oppose secession, the Declaration did not claim that Britain had no right to try to keep America as a colony. So why do you insist that the North had no right to try to preserve the Union?
The Union was voluntary and each state was bound only by its VOLUNTARY act of ratifying the Constitution. 3 states including 2 Northern states and Virginia expressly reserved the right to unilaterally secede at the time that they ratified the Constitution. Nobody said this was in any way inconsistent with the Constitution.
No, you don't get to pull that trick. You have to show where it is forbidden. Just because a right is not enumerated does not mean it doesn't exist.
The Declaration said this right existed, and the Constitutional convention was only 11 years after everyone in the nation had put forth the Declaration, so the burden of proof is on you to show how they intended the Constitution to *CONTRADICT* what was a recognized right at the time.
Consider that the Declaration urges that "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
I have considered it. It is a suggestion, not a requirement. People don't have to explain why they are exercising a right. It is only a curtesy when they do.
Yet you insist that while slavery is prominently mentioned in the official Southern statements of secession, economics was the real reason.
My position is that rights are not conditional. You can exercise your right for bad reasons as well as good. The point is it is *YOUR* right.
And again, they don't have to explain their reasons for leaving. The North needs to explain it's reason for stopping them, and so far I see no support in the US Constitution for their actions.
If you are accurate, that obscurity takes Southern secession away from the requirement of the Declaration that the causes be stated.
It is not a requirement. It is a curtesy.
Moreover, the Declaration states that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This principle makes slavery ineligible as a legitimate basis for secession.
Firstly, you don't have a conditional right of secession. You have a complete and total right to secede for any reason the people of a state see fit.
Secondly, the "all men are created equal" relies on the same God that says
" When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."
The right to leave is given by the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."
As for whether the North had a right to oppose secession, the Declaration did not claim that Britain had no right to try to keep America as a colony.
I do not grasp how you can reach that conclusion. The entire point of the Declaration and the War for independence was to assert the position that Britain had no right to try to keep America as a colony.