Well, looks like here we have a confession but then another deflection,
People have a natural right to do a lot of stupid things, but the point here is the Founders view of justification for secession found in the text of the D of I is contrary to yours. It's not codified law, just a viewpoint but one I happen to agree with and you don't.
Now, take a couple of Valium, go to bed, and don't call me in the morning.
Well, it looks like we have an acknowledgement that people "should" not change their government for light and transient reasons, but what they should and should not do has nothing to do with their right to do as they see fit.
Again, the word is "should" as in "wouldn't be prudent", not "shall."
"People have a natural right to do a lot of stupid things,..."
Well, looks like here we have a confession but then another deflection. Here's the deflection part.
but the point here is the Founders view of justification for secession found in the text of the D of I is contrary to yours.
Not at all. They clearly state "that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it." (The ends being "to secure the rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness)
As I had previously said, only the sufferer can decide whether or not a government is interfering with their life, their liberty and their pursuit of happiness.
The Founders listed some reasons they didn't like the existing government, but this was never construed to mean only these reasons were valid, or that there must be 27 of them to make it legitimate.
That they declare "the causes" which offended them does not preclude other people having other causes for which they wish to abolish their existing government.
"Offenses" depends entirely on who's ox is getting gored.
It's not codified law, just a viewpoint but one I happen to agree with and you don't.
You project your own ideas on to the founders, and then claim they agree with you. I have actually read much of the writings of the founders, and I recognize that they first decided they had a right to be independent, and then they thought up offenses to justify their intentions in the eyes of the European courts. King George simply ignored their declaration because he didn't see any offense in his past actions.
This is not a matter of subjective opinion, this is a matter of historical record which you could read for yourself if you only chose to do so. Again, James Otis spells out the case for Independence, and it argues that men are entitled to rule themselves, and they do not have to submit to a King, nor matter how tolerable and benevolent.
I think you don't want to admit the truth of this, because you have rightly recognized that this is the lynchpin upon which the entire argument for suppressing the South pivots. I think you come into this with the notion that above all else, the North's actions must be regarded as correct, and so therefore the only course of action is to argue the South didn't have legitimate "causes" to invoke the same rights to independence as did the founders.
You have made up your mind what your conclusions must be, and so then you attempt to force the facts and the text to fit your necessary result.
The point that "causes" are irrelevant to the right to independence is anathema to your needed outcome, and so you simply won't consider the idea objectively, and you will ignore any proof offered to demonstrate the truth of the matter.
You need what you believe to be true, so therefore in your own mind it is true.