Posted on 07/22/2015 7:36:12 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Dude. You can read it for yourself.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Yes, it pretty much says that.
Your proposal would be totally unmanageable. And, you know that.
By the way, can I just be independent on every April 15? C'mon! ;-)
This is my thinking too. If there is a difference, it's too subtle for me to grasp.
I suppose the colonists could have tried to talk Britain into having an election in the colonies to decide the matter.
The very base foundation of British law is a "perpetual allegiance" to the King, who rules by "Divine right." Every stone of it is built on that premise, so no, there was never any hope of people "voting" to leave the Allegiance of the King.
They could have tried to negotiate with Washington for an election,
They had elections. Washington D.C. didn't like the outcome, so they simply dismissed the results.
they decided to have the matter decided by force of arms.
You keep saying "they decided" as if they didn't live in a country founded on the principle that people had a right to leave. Why would anyone think violence should be a necessary part of leaving when you live in a country that is founded on the premise that leaving is a right?
This is like saying " You want freedom of speech? You're gonna have to fight for that. "
No, someone asserting their right does not automatically translate into "so you decided to fight? "
I would suggest that if they had "decided" to fight, they would have massed troops along the border and invaded. H3ll, if they had taken Washington D.C., it probably would have worked out for the better.
As it is, their disinclination to fight is what cost them the war.
No, they weren't trying to fight, they were trying not to fight, and perhaps they should have been more aggressive.
So, you won’t even admit that the British tyrants were, objectively-speaking, tyrants. Okey-dokey.
The last one of your crew that I questionted wouldn’t respond to a simple question of whether slavery is wrong.
I think I’m seeing a pattern here.
As usual, you ignore the moral basis stated clearly in the words you yourself posted from the Declaration.
If me and my neighbors, right here on my block, decide that we want to secede from the Union, do we have a right to do so, totally without regard to the opinions of the whole body of the people of my state and of the United States, and to take this little section of America out of the United States?
Why do you keep trying to marginalize their rights with derogatories like "group of people". 9 Million is more than just a "group of people." It is nearly three times the 1776 population of all of the 13 colonies combined.
That's just not true and it never was true.
Not the way you present it, because you have simply put forth a "strawman". The right to Independence was true in 1776. It was still true "Four Score and Seven years later", but the Union chose to deliberately ignore it.
You can't just ignore the interests of everyone else involved.
You tell me who's "interests" got ignored in a manner differently from what the founders did, and you might have a point.
I notice that you simply won't answer the question about your concerns for the rights of British Loyalists in 1776.
When I think "Tyrant", I am thinking more along the lines of what Lincoln did. King George was a pain in the ass, but compared to Lincoln he was a piker.
The last one of your crew that I questionted wouldn’t respond to a simple question of whether slavery is wrong.
Well, I don't know who you have questioned, but I have said repeatedly that Slavery is objectively wrong. I have also said repeatedly that The Union didn't agree, because they beat their runaway slave when they finally caught her.
I think I’m seeing a pattern here.
Paranoids imagine all sorts of "patterns", but often times it is just their imaginations. Nobody is really out to get them. :)
And as usual, you complain about the mote in my eye, while ignoring the beam in your own.
It’s obvious that you don’t get the main points of the Declaration of Independence.
That’s not a mote. That’s the reason the Americans declared independence.
Why on earth do you want to make an infantile comparison to "neighbors, right here on my block" and nine million people in eleven states?
What do you feel the need to waste my time and your own on such immature contrarian dreck?
Well, with all due respect, you force me to say group of people because you never define what size or type of people are sufficient to have a God-given right to remove existing governments. Do you find some number in the Declaration of Independence? And, by what principle do you place a limit on that number - you know, for it to be a God-given right and all? This stuff isn't coming from the Declaration of Independence. It's coming from you.
You tell me who's "interests" got ignored in a manner differently from what the founders did, and you might have a point.
The movers and shakers who signed the Declaration of Independence did what they did without reference to the interests of the British government, the British people and every colonist who might have disagreed with them (whether they be Loyalists or not). Those interests were ignored. If everyone had agreed, there wouldn't have been a fight.
Once again, you can’t, or more accurately won’t, answer simple questions that go right to the heart of the matter.
You’re claiming an absolute right to secession. The number of the minority of the people involved is irrelevant.
No. The Declaration was the laying out of the justifications for independence. The spelling out for the world of the tyranny of the British government. A tyranny you won’t even admit to.
You also obviously don’t understand that the justifications given for the secession of the southern states were immoral, and explicitly contrary to the stated moral principles of the Declaration of Independence.
You are deliberately obfuscating. Why are you doing this?
Do you really want to have a discussion about the size and scope of a population necessary to exercise the right to declare independence as a sovereign state, or do you just throw crap like that out there just to churn the waters?
A principle in Math is that if a function defines a range, any number between the upper and lower boundaries is contained within that range.
Suffice it to say, if the Colonists represented a sufficient quantity, and it is axiomatic to the existence of our Nation that they do, then any population beyond that must be regarded as having exceeded this lower boundary, and it is therefore an appeal to triviality to put forth such statements as "bunch of my neighbors" or "group of people", in an attempt to compare with the rights of nine million people in 11 states.
It is not the argument of a rational man, it is the time wasting argument of a child, little different from "But he did it too!" In terms of relevance.
So let us cut right to the meat of the matter. By what argument can you claim that the ~2 1/2 million people in the 13 colonies be sufficient, but the 9 million in the 11 Southern states is insufficient?
The "Declaration of Independence" was about "Independence", and sensible people do not need to have this observation brought to their attention.
No matter how true it is, or how obvious it is, you want to claim it means something else, and I simply don't have any interest in wasting time with this sort of nonsense.
I have no interest in your opinion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.