Don't substitute my meaning. The core, the Soul of the Declaration of Independence is the right to leave.
Lincoln in his commemoration presented it as a right for slaves to be free, which created an implied right for his armies to stop actual states from being free.
This absolutely reverses the purpose and intent of the Declaration of independence.
And strictly speaking, the Declaration isn't a state's rights document. The same principle that would allow a state government to break with an oppressive federal union would also allow groups within states (alienated Tennessee and Alabama highlanders, slaves) to break with a government that oppressed them.
In context, the Document applied to actual states. Whether or not it can be applied to smaller populations within states is another matter, because that is not what was happening in 1860. It was actual states, some of which were among the original 13 states, that were demanding their independence.
So we don't need to be invoking any theoretical Oranges when we are dealing with actual Apples.
And you still haven't explained why, if Sumter became South Carolina property when the secession ordinance was passed, US bases in California wouldn't automatically become California property if that state seceded.
Those who can reason don't need it to be explained to them. Those who can't, wouldn't understand the explanation anyways.
When you assert a general principle, people will apply it as a general principle. The Declaration speaks of "one people" dissolving "political bands which have connected them with another." It does not restrict that right to states, or provinces or politically organized colonies.
Whether or not it can be applied to smaller populations within states is another matter, because that is not what was happening in 1860.
It was what happened in West Virginia and in the Free State of Jones. And it was a relevant question in many other parts of the country where residents of the same state fought on different sides.
Those who can reason don't need it to be explained to them. Those who can't, wouldn't understand the explanation anyways.
Once again, you duck the question. Either you really believe that US bases in California legally belong to the US and are a hypocrite for denying the same thing about Fort Sumter, or you are claiming some right of necessity in this case that overrides your expressed principles, which also makes you a hypocrite.
Answer the question already or go away. Would the US be justified in retaining military bases in California if the state seceded?