If it was intolerable, why didn't the Canadians revolt?
to a rebellion against the lawful government of the United States that Virginia and all the other Southern states voluntarily entered into
Let us see what Virginia actually agreed to.
WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: ...
The State of New York had a very similar verbiage in it's ratification statement.
because pro-slave forces couldn’t handle losing the election?
Well firstly, that's your opinion of why they wanted independence, and secondly, the Declaration of Independence does not specify what reasons are sufficient to assert the right of independence. It merely says that the people have a right to it if they want it:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — 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.
You mention George Washington rebelling against King George and you accuse me of deflecting? You got some nerve!!!
When you try to assert that the Union went to war with the South because the South had slavery, you are deflecting. The Union did not go to war with the South because the South had Slavery. Therefore, only the VALID reasons why the Union went to war with the South have any bearing on the subject. Claiming the war was about slavery is just propaganda to justify the Union invading. The Union didn't care about slavery in the South, (Or in Union States either) they invaded to stop the Southern people from having financial independence from Washington DC.
Slavery and the preservation of political power for slave owners (rich a-holes, cheap labor express of their day) was the only reason the Confederacy existed.
Slavery would have continued to exist if they had remained in the Union, and therefore Slavery is a non-issue. You have a more valid point about them trying to preserve their political power, but the South's reasons for seceding are irrelevant. They had a right to do so for any reason sufficient to convince their people that they wanted independence, and as they voted to leave in accordance with the Democratic process, it doesn't matter why they wanted to leave. They had a right to do so for any reason that satisfied them.
The principles articulated in the Declaration of Independence are either valid or they are not. If they are valid, they are just as valid for the Confederates as they were for the Founders.
DiogenesLamp: "If it was intolerable, why didn't the Canadians revolt?"
By now DiogenesLamp well knows Canadians in 1775 had a very different situation, so different they were glad to have British troops stationed in their territory for protection against not only Americans, but also French Canadians.
And, none of the "intolerable acts" imposed on Americans applied to Canadians.
Indeed, one "intolerable act", the Quebec Act, was favorable to Canadians who were generally happy with it.
DiogenesLamp quoting Virginia ratification: "...may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression"
DiogenesLamp continues to fantasize these words meant Virginians intended to declare secession for any reason whatever, or indeed for no reason at all, whenever they felt like it.
But that is simply not true.
Those words "injury or oppression" referred exactly to conditions described in the Declaration of Independence, none of which existed in 1860.
DiogenesLamp: " the Declaration of Independence does not specify what reasons are sufficient to assert the right of independence.
It merely says that the people have a right to it if they want it: "
It says nothing of the sort, even the passage DiogenesLamp quotes here:
DiogenesLamp: "When you try to assert that the Union went to war with the South because the South had slavery, you are deflecting."
I've never seen a pro-Union poster make such a claim, only Lost Causers say that.
What Unionists say is: Confederates declared secession & war to protect slavery, the Union accepted war to preserve the Union.
DiogenesLamp: "The Union didn't care about slavery in the South, (Or in Union States either) they invaded to stop the Southern people from having financial independence from Washington DC."
Not one Union soldier in a thousand would have any clue what you're talking about.
They believed, first, they were preserving the Union and eventually, second, for that slavery must be abolished.
DiogenesLamp: "Slavery would have continued to exist if they had remained in the Union, and therefore Slavery is a non-issue"
DiogenesLamp well knows that's a lie, but keeps repeating it anyway.
Slavery was always the number one reason, and often the only reason, listed by Fire Eaters in their "Reasons for secession" documents.
DiogenesLamp: "...the South's reasons for seceding are irrelevant.
They had a right to do so for any reason sufficient to convince their people that they wanted independence..."
So claimed Deep South Fire Eaters in 1860 and Lost Causers today, but in fact, no US Founder ever proposed or supported unilateral unapproved declaration of secession at pleasure, meaning absent conditions analogous to those listed in the Declaration of Independence.
DiogenesLamp: "The principles articulated in the Declaration of Independence are either valid or they are not.
If they are valid, they are just as valid for the Confederates as they were for the Founders."
What's totally invalid is DiogenesLamp's interpretation of our Founders' words & deed.
In fact, no Founder ever supported an unlimited "right of secession" for any reason or for no reason at all.
And yet that's just what began in 1860.