jeffersondem wrote: I’m not following your thinking. Post 186 was not mine.
Kriskrinkle replies: I slipped up in my rush to get on with other things. I'll start over. I hope I have the sequence correct.
1. Pelham Post 214: " I still am waiting to see what moral right there was for the British colonials seceding from their mother government."
2. Kriskrinkle Post 230 responding to Pelham Post 214: "And they used the Declaration of Independence to convey the moral right for their rebellion. What parts of the Declaration do you find immoral?" (Bolded because it's important here.)
3. jeffersondem Post 250 chiming in to respond to Kriskrnkle Post 230: "Arguably, referencing slavery as a justification for the Declaration of Independence was immoral."
(I don't believe Pelham ever responded, but things happen so I have no quarrel with that.)
4. Kriskrinkle Post 257 responding to jeffersondem Post 250: "You apparently know more about this than I, so give me a convincing argument."
(Because I don't see a reference to slavery in the DOI.)
5. jeffersondem Post 270 responding to Kriskrinkle Post 257 citing an excerpt from Lord Dunmore's Proclamation of November 7, 1775 apparently as the start of convincing argument in support of the position that the DOI words “He has excited domestic insurrections” means slave insurrections.
6. Kriskrinkle Post 289 responding to jeffersondem Post 270: I messed up the first paragraph.
In the second paragraph I wrote: "As to Lord Dunmore’s Proclamation, he required “every Person capable of bearing Arms, to resort to His MAJESTY’S STANDARD” and declared “all indented Servants, Negroes, or others, (appertaining to Rebels,) free that are able and willing to bear Arms, they joining His MAJESTY’S Troops”. On the face of it, that doesn’t seem like a call for insurrection (although an inference might be taken), but instead a call to join the forces of one side in an already ongoing conflict. And it wasn’t addressed only to slaves, nor to all slaves."
In the third paragraph I wrote: "In short (because I’ve other things to do), as far as I can tell, you haven’t presented anything convincing."
7. Finally, my position noted in bold in 2 above is "And they used the Declaration of Independence to convey the moral right for their rebellion. ( And I asked of Pelham: "What parts of the Declaration do you find immoral?" )
After that I got enmeshed in the tangle or whether or not the DOI referenced slavery as a justification.
So, getting back to what I was really interested in, my position that they used the DOI to convey the moral right for their rebellion, the question is: Even if, or stipulating for the sake of argument that, the DOI references slavery as a justification, does such a reference, not an outright statement, invalidate the DOI as a whole as something that conveys the moral right for their rebellion?
Pelham (if you wish)? jeffersondem? Bueller? Anyone?
Dunmore’s Proclamation required slaves to fight with the Redcoats to gain their freedom. Philipsburg was a general emancipation.
I never said that I found any part of the DOI immoral and I haven’t seen anyone produce a post of mine to that effect. Someone may be reading their own ideas into what I did write- I asked what ‘moral rights’ the DOI is said to be citing by those making that claim.
The DOI isn’t the ‘Declaration of Moral Rights’, it’s an announcement that the colonials were fed up with their mother gov’t in London and that they intended to start their own gov’t. London considered it treason. Had London won I suspect that we’d be treated to the story that the colonial rebels were guilty of treason rather than unsuccessful defenders of some unnamed moral rights.
Short answer: no.
Longer answer: All thirteen states referencing slavery in the U.S. DOI as a justification for separating from England is not a disqualifier anymore than southern states referencing slavery in their secession declarations.
All states voting to provide for slavery in the U.S. constitution is not a disqualifier any more than southern states including slavery in the Confederate constitution.
The money made by northern investments in slavery over its 230-plus year history is no more a disqualifier than southern profits from slavery over the same time period.
Lincoln's white supremacy rule was no worse than Davis’ white supremacy rule.
Arguably, the north had the high moral ground when they profited from capturing and buying slaves; transporting slaves; trading and selling slaves; working slaves; buying, selling, and transporting slave-produced cotton; and selling manufactured goods into the southern slave economy. The high moral ground later enabled them to kill people - well, loosed the terrible swift sword on those - who didn't want to “free the slaves.”
The reason I say the north may have had the high moral ground is because - in all of this - the northern people had really, really, really, really good intentions.
Don't take my word for it. They will tell you that themselves.