Who are *YOU* to tell other people that their desire for independence must meet with your approval?
A cause sufficient to want independence is entirely in the eyes of the beholder. King George III did not think the colonists were so put upon that it justified their independence, but they thought otherwise.
You seem to have that grain of Liberal Fascism running through you where you think you get to pass moral judgement on other people who do not live up to what you believe is correct or proper.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
Again you misunderstand.
I'm not saying their cause was insufficient for me, I'm saying they had no cause, period -- not on November 5, 1860 when there were no actions for secession, and still not after November 6, 1860 when their actions began to declare secession.
I'm saying nothing happened on November 6, 1860 that could move Deep South states from their previous political "happiness" to "unhappiness", nothing except the voting for a new President.
But mere voting cannot turn happiness to unhappiness, and so, by definition when politically "happy" people declare secession, that is secession "at pleasure".
Again, I'm not saying their reasons were insufficient, I'm saying they had no reasons, period, after November 6 that they didn't have before, and we know those reasons for unhappiness before November 6 were insufficient to declare secession.
DiogenesLamp: "King George III did not think the colonists were so put upon that it justified their independence, but they thought otherwise."
No, you totally misunderstand.
Well over a year before the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, well over a year earlier King George had already declared Americans to be in a state of rebellion -- a declaration of war -- and had launched war against them!
So there was no "choice" in the matter, certainly no "at pleasure" about it, but rather as the Declaration clearly says: total necessity.
But no similar conditions existed after November 6, 1860 when Deep South Fire Eaters began organizing to declare their secessions.
DiogenesLamp: "You seem to have that grain of Liberal Fascism running through you where you think you get to pass moral judgement on other people who do not live up to what you believe is correct or proper."
Rubbish and nonsense.
I am arguing that since there was no cause for secession on November 5, 1860, neither was there a cause after November 6, none, zero, nada.
I am arguing that Deep South Fire Eaters declared secession not with "mutual consent" and not "for material cause", but rather "at pleasure".