Replies

“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?”

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.