That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Did you miss the bolded parts? The Declaration of Independence does not justify leaving "for whatever reason suits them." It justifies leaving when a government becomes "destructive of [the] ends" of "securing" the unalienable rights enumerated in the Declaration - including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The states that seceded from the Union seceded for exactly the opposite reason - they seceded in order to restrict the rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for the millions of slaves who were held in bondage in their states.
The body politic in the Southern States was not premised upon some "one man/one vote" assumption, such as led to genocide in Rwanda. As in ancient Athens, "Democracy" was premised upon a recognized citizenry. Athens had both a large foreign resident population & a large slave population, at the time it defined the "Democracy," which some people--not the Founding Fathers--but some people, considered an ideal.
Naturally, it was the recognized citizenry, whose liberty was being pursued. On the other hand, many Confederates would have argued that their secession would also have protected the Safety & Happiness, of those held in service. You can garner a feeling for this, should you elect sometime to read some of the literature of the period.
I did not miss that part. I believe the Southern States felt that the Lincoln administration represented a grave threat to their financial interests. Do you believe otherwise?
The states that seceded from the Union seceded for exactly the opposite reason - they seceded in order to restrict the rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for the millions of slaves who were held in bondage in their states.
It is a horrible fact of History that the principles advocated in the Declaration of Independence were never intended to apply to these people. That this is a fact can be able demonstrated by considering the reality that all 13 colonies were slave states when that document created the Nation. The Revolutionary war was a case of 13 slave states rebelling against a Union.
By attempting to apply the Declaration to the condition of legal slavery, you are liberalizing it contrary to original intent.
Now I say it *SHOULD* have applied to slaves when it was written, but I am not going to lie to myself and claim that it did. Some states, such as Massachusetts did indeed interpret the Declaration of Independence as applying to slaves, (In their original Liberty Cases) but most states did not. Most states passed legislative efforts to abolish slavery, and didn't try that Liberal sleigh of hand trick used in Massachusetts.
Basically that's what the Constitution means too according to Alexander Hamilton and John Jay (future first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court), two of the three authors of the Federalist Papers that explained what the Constitution meant. Here is what they and the New York Ratification Convention voted for, one of the clearest statements of original intent [my bold emphasis below]:
WE the Delegates of the People of the State of New York, duly elected and Met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the seventeenth day of September, in the year One thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia in the Common-wealth of Pennsylvania (a Copy whereof precedes these presents) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of the United States, Do declare and make known.
... That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; ...
... Under these impressions and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the Explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution, And in confidence that the Amendments which shall have been proposed to the said Constitution will receive an early and mature Consideration: We the said Delegates, in the Name and in the behalf of the People of the State of New York Do by these presents Assent to and Ratify the said Constitution.
Hamilton and Jay and the other New York Ratifiers also included among the rights they listed in their ratification document:
That the People have an equal, natural and unalienable right, freely and peaceably to Exercise their Religion according to the dictates of Conscience, and that no Religious Sect or Society ought to be favoured or established by Law in preference of others.
That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State;
That every Person restrained of his Liberty is entitled to an enquiry into the lawfulness of such restraint, and to a removal thereof if unlawful, and that such enquiry and removal ought not to be denied or delayed, except when on account of Public Danger the Congress shall suspend the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus.
As far as I know, none of the other states objected to the New York Ratification.