Replies

DiogenesLamp: "And here we go again.
Saying 'a decent respect for the opinions of mankind...' means what?
Compulsion?
One is obligated to state a cause for exercising the right of independence?
In my understanding of the English language, this means a list of causes is a mere courtesy, not an essential requirement.
If one does not wish to explain why one no longer wishes to associate with others, one does not have any requirement to do so.
The right to independence is not conditional on a 'respect for the opinions of mankind.' "

This is actually an important element in DiogenesLamp's Lost Cause insanity and so should not be skipped over or sluffed off.
DL wishes to equate our 1776 Founders' long list of legitimate past abuses suffered with 1860 Fire Eaters' "at pleasure" secession over slavery's potential future expansion.
And that is only remotely possible if reasons don't matter.
It's why DL goes to some efforts to pretend the 1776 Declaration's reasons were "a mere courtesy", not necessary, not even important, indeed they're really a distraction according to DiogenesLamp from the fact that Founders had an inherent right to secede any time, under any circumstances, for any reasons or for no reasons -- "at pleasure" -- it doesn't matter, according to DiogenesLamp.

That's his opinion and, sane or not, he's entitled to it.
But it's not what our Founders said -- not one, ever.
It's simply DiogenesLamp hoping to insert his own insanity into the words of our Founders.
Regardless, none of them believed it, what the believed instead was:

"when a long train of [British] 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..."

Independence is justified & made necessary by "a long train of abuses & usurpations", no Founder ever said differently.

He’s made that claim before on other threads, that the reason they rebelled doesn’t matter. Claiming that because there is a natural right to rebellion you can’t examine why someone is rebelling. As you have so elequontly pointed out, the founding fathers didn’t think so.

I mean there is a natural right to self-defense. But if I shoot someone in the head and I claim I was scared for my life. And this person had no weapon and hadnt made a threatening move at me, my claim of self-defense is going to be laughed at.

If I shoot someone in the head that has a loaded weapon pointed at me, my claim to self-defense will be much more believable.