Royal Governor of Virginia Lord Dunmore. Start with that.
“…I do require every Person capable of bearing Arms, to resort to His MAJESTY’S STANDARD, or be looked upon as Traitors to His MAJESTY’S Crown and Government, and thereby become liable to the Penalty the Law inflicts upon such Offenses; such as forfeiture of Life, confiscation of Lands, &. &. And I do hereby further declare all indented Servants, Negroes, or others, (appertaining to Rebels,) free that are able and willing to bear Arms, they joining His MAJESTY’S Troops as soon as may be, for the more speedily reducing this Colony to a proper Sense of their Duty, to His MAJESTY’S Crown and Dignity.”–Lord Dunmore’s Proclamation, Nov 7 1775.
So, in Post 186 you wrote: “I still am waiting to see what moral right there was for the British colonials seceding from their mother government” to which I responded in Post 214: “And they used the Declaration of Independence to convey the moral right for their rebellion. What parts of the Declaration do you find immoral?”. Your response to that in Post 250 was “Arguably, referencing slavery as a justification for the Declaration of Independence was immoral”. In support of that you’re using Lord Dunmore’s Proclamation to support the position that the DOI words “He has excited domestic insurrections” means slave insurrections and such a reference to slavery as justification for the DOI was immoral. You didn’t mention the rest of the DOI so either you have unmentioned reservations about the morality of the rest of it, you no longer are “waiting to see what moral right there was”, or you believe the one reference makes the whole thing immoral.
As to Lord Dunmore’s Proclamation, he required “every Person capable of bearing Arms, to resort to His MAJESTY’S STANDARD” and declared “all indented Servants, Negroes, or others, (appertaining to Rebels,) free that are able and willing to bear Arms, they joining His MAJESTY’S Troops”. On the face of it, that doesn’t seem like a call for insurrection (although an inference might be taken), but instead a call to join the forces of one side in an already ongoing conflict. And it wasn’t addressed only to slaves, nor to all slaves.
In short (because I’ve other things to do), as far as I can tell, you haven’t presented anything convincing.