You, of course, are free to cite anything you might wish as "necessary".
But if you wish to invoke our Founders imprimatur, then you will need to go by their definitions, and they regarded the British declaration of war on Americans as a "necessary" cause for revolution.
Nothing happening in 1860 remotely fit our Founders' understanding of either "necessity" or "mutual consent."
People decide for themselves what is painful and unbearable. I am not arrogant enough to believe I should have the right to decide for them.
But if you wish to invoke our Founders imprimatur, then you will need to go by their definitions, and they regarded the British declaration of war on Americans as a "necessary" cause for revolution.
Like this one? "He has incited domestic insurrections amongst us..." (Meaning slave rebellions.)
Nothing happening in 1860 remotely fit our Founders' understanding of either "necessity" or "mutual consent."
There was no "mutual consent" with the British, and it astonishes me that you continue trying to hang on to that silly argument when it clearly is not related to anything the founders did.
They decided unilaterally that they wanted out of the British Union and so they just left.
And as I have pointed out to you numerous times, the Canadians, under the exact same rule as Massachusetts, did not see the colonies reasons for leaving as "necessity."