Philosophy focuses on all types of rights and philosophers debate both which sort of foundation is best for supporting rights and which specific rights should be derived from a given foundation. Given this diversity of thought it seems a bit odd to simply proclaim a particular right to exist regardless of circumstance. I agree that in general in every society some rights exist but this is a very different claim.

It seems clear that we only have rights that our society agrees to maintain, both positive and negative rights. This is most obvious with women in the modern era, but certainly throughout history there are numerous examples of people being denied what you might consider to be a right. What then is a right if it is so easily violated and if entire societies can deny their existence?

Yes, but that ignores that our legal system wasn’t simply rationally designed but instead evolved over many centuries. The US inherited English common law which traces back past the Magna Carta. Other societies develop other legal systems and sets of rights.

The final section doesn’t say much except that the state doesn’t create rights and the US founding fathers considered rights. Leaving aside that the Bill of Rights was literally and amendment to the Constitution and that several key rights were left out, this doesn’t really answer the question at all, it just asserts that some other people considered the question.

My understanding of the history of the civil war is very different than “some quakers and slaves revolted”.

Who do you think led the abolition movements? You can try to split it up but ultimately many people in power who could have been oppressors rejected slavery and actively fought to end it. There were also numerous stories of slaveholders freeing their slaves although obviously this was an extreme minority.

Isn’t that exactly how slavery ended in many places, with those in power banning it?

Sepsis is horrible and not exciting, but maybe that’s just me.