I think this is the third time that I suggested you read through the thread so that you can read that series of messages posted by PeaRidge pointing out that the Union was on their way to start one regardless of what the Southern states did.
It's mind-boggling, just and mind-boggling as your endlessly repeated defenses of them.
It's mind-boggling that after so many repetitions you still lack the comprehension to grasp the essential point; The Declaration does not stipulate "for every reason except for the continuation of slavery."
Again, when you say "Slavery" I think "Liar is trying to misdirect the subject again."
No, the fact is that Lincoln promised in his First Inaugural (March 4, 1861) that the Confederacy could not have a war unless they themselves started it.
And no actions of Lincoln before Fort Sumter were either provocations or acts of war against the Confederacy.
Indeed, no Confederate soldier was killed directly in battle with any Union force until the Battle of Big Bethel (June 10, 1861) two months after the Confederacy started war at Fort Sumter, and one month after the Confederacy formally declared war, on May 6, 1861.
But Confederates cared nothing about that, they only cared to demonstrate the power of their military arms, regardless of long-term consequences.
And, if you don't believe me, then take the words of Jefferson Davis, from his Inaugural Address, February 8, 1861:
Of course, only Davis would decide what did, or did not, "assail" his "jurisdiction".
So, regardless of Constitution, law or historical precedents, Davis decided Lincoln's peaceful effort to resupply Fort Sumter was worthy of an "appeal to arms", and soon thereafter a Declaration of War on the United States.
As so the war came...
DiogenesLamp: "It's mind-boggling that after so many repetitions you still lack the comprehension to grasp the essential point; The Declaration does not stipulate 'for every reason except for the continuation of slavery.' "
By now, after so many corrections, such responses from you have to be labeled "dishonest", since you've so often been told the truth of the matter.
So when are you going to stop with the nonsense?
The answer to your point is: the Declaration certainly does imply there must be reasons and causes which compel and it make necessary to "dissolve the political bands".
No actual Founder ever expressed the idea that secession "at pleasure" was acceptable.
DiogenesLamp: "Again, when you say 'Slavery' I think 'Liar is trying to misdirect the subject again.' "
But, FRiend, only you keep saying "Slavery".
I have never used the term outside its proper context.
So why do you keep reading what's not actually there?