Which one were we asserting when we declared that people had a right to dissolve the political bonds?
Britain didn't end the war because King George reasonably saw that the colonies were morally right. He ended it because his armies had been defeated, the French were now involved on the American side, and he lost control of parliament and with it the political means to continue fighting.
Well, had he been Lincoln, he could have simply arrested the disagreeable members of Parliament, Suspended Habeas Corpus, and thrown in Jail anyone who didn't agree with his decision to continue the war.
Beyond that, you overlook the point that members of Parliament saw that the colonies were morally right, and thus withdrew their support for the war. Look up Edmund Burke.
I'm not saying that the United States should have done anything differently. But you might want to remember Benjamin Franklin said about what would have happened to them if your "reasonable" King George had won. "We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." He knew what was at stake.
No one is disputing that what the Colonies did was illegal under English law. The point in question was how they could claim it was illegal under the natural law they asserted in their break with England.
The USA was supposed to respect it's OWN principles of Natural law, not those of England. According to the US Principles of Natural law, every people had a right to separate themselves from a government they no longer wanted.
The Freedom of Association implies a corollary; A Freedom to disassociate. We now have a policy of compulsory association, and it will continue to manifest itself in our current government. Think the "gay marriage" issue won't affect you? They will MAKE you accept it. Abortion in Catholic Hospitals? FORCED to accept it. Illegal immigration? Obamacare? Death Panels? Inflated Dollars? etc. I doubt not that at some point Christianity will be banned.
You won't be allowed to escape it. The financial ruin that comes with reckless states being chained to you? Why you get to share in that too!
Rejecting the principle of escape from an oppressive government will come back to haunt you, I think. Yes, many of the people who did it before were bad people, but the Precedent set in compulsory union will hereafter be used to hurt any good people who try to escape.
Moral. They knew what they were doing was illegal under English law. Hence Franklin's comment about hanging.
The point in question was how they could claim it was illegal under the natural law they asserted in their break with England.
"Natural Law" is a very slippery thing to define and tends to mean whatever the writer wants it to mean.
The Freedom of Association implies a corollary; A Freedom to disassociate.
Indeed. And there are constitutional means for that, i.e., a vote of congress similar to the one that admitted the state, or by constitutional amendment. Failing those, all people have the right of rebellion. But invoking a right of rebellion doesn't mean those opposing your rebellion are obliged to bend over.