Sure, it's called the Natural Right of Rebellion. But you're the one who claims that this right only applies to a certain numerical or territorial threshold that you consistently refuse to define. What you seem to believe is a collective right, and not an individual right.
The UNION most certainly did REBEL against those principles listed therein. They had no RIGHT to keep other people under their rule against their will. So says the Declaration. So says the foundation of our government.
Then why does the Constitution give the government the power to put down insurrections? Again, you refuse to define what distinguishes an insurrection that can be put down with a right to declare yourself another country that cannot.
I am not going to humor your childish argument that 11 states with a combined population five times bigger than all 13 colonies in 1776, was not sufficient to demand self determination. Sell this bullshit waste of time to someone stupid enough to give it credence.
You're the one who says that an individual, or a city block, or some other group cannot, but that 11 states can. So the threshold is somewhere between those two but you won't say what it is. These are your stated beliefs that you consistently refuse to defend.
The continued placement of Federal troops in the territory of a people who clearly have formed another nation and do not want them there is a deliberate provocation in and of itself.
Saying that you're now a different country doesn't make it so, and shelling US Army troops tends not to end well for those who try it.
11 states seeking self determination is not an insurrection.
From the Militia Act of 1792:
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, the same being notified to the President of the United States, by an associate justice or the district judge, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session.
You keep using it to IGNORE the more significant point that this aspect is irrelevant to the reasons the Union invaded.
Look, I understand that the fact that the south launched their rebellion in order to preserve their economic interest in slavery is embarrassing to you and you'd rather not discuss it, instead focussing on just how UNFAIR it was that the slaver rebellion was defeated, but it's impossible to ignore the words of the people who led that rebellion when they said that slavery was EXACTLY why they did it, as much as you'd like to.
You won't shut up about "Slavery" because that is the balm you use to salve your guilty conscious
You think I have a guilty "conscious"? I guarantee you, I do not. But I think your constant insistence that the whole thing had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with slavery, no matter what anyone at the time said, shows that you are clearly uncomfortable with that fact and would like nothing better than to remove it from the conversation.
Maybe if someone else shows up, i'll spank you some more.