In context, the Document applied to actual states.
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?
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. It restricts it to a minimum size to which a reasonable person can recognize as "one people." The boundaries are fuzzy around the edges, but in the case of the Southern states, we are way past the area of fuzzy boundaries on this general principle. As they themselves pointed out, they represented four times the population of the original thirteen colonies.
And I am not going to discuss the bases in California in comparison to a pile of rocks in the middle of an estuary upon which someone put some cannons.
