Well, you used the Declaration to justifiy the south's secession as revolution. Here is Mr. Sandefur's response to that from the article:
The Declaration of Independence enunciates these principles in what is almost a syllogism: “all men are created equal... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights... among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness... to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed... whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends... it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government....” This right and duty, however, may only be exercised after “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute Despotism.”
The Declaration of Independence, therefore, far from recognizing any “unconditional” right of people to overthrow their government, places several important limits on rebellion: it is justified only by a collective act of self-defense, and even then, only after “a long train of abuses and usurpations.” And a rebellion which institutes a new government based not on securing individual rights, but on violating them (such as a revolution that consists of stealing people’s property(he means the south's stealing of the slaves right to own themselves), is not a legitimate revolution at all in the eyes of the Declaration’s libertarian theory; it would be merely a massive criminal
act or coup.
Also see my earlier post from the Federalist Papers via Hamilton. (I can find a simialar excerpt from Madsion if pressed.) Your Saundefur understands the Declaration and the Constitution like a modern day liberal, which is to say according to his own interpretation and worldview. People like me prefer Jefferson, Hamilton and Madison's interpretation.
ML/NJ