You did not. What galls me even more is that you think you did. What I saw was utter crap arguments, and which at the time I was too polite to point this out.
I happen to have been researching the Declaration of Independence for several years now. I understand it's philosophical roots. I understand how the various philosophers of "Natural Law" read and cited by the founders came to be the inspiration for the document.
The Dispute between the Founders and the King of England was a dispute regarding which "Natural Law" path was correct. The "rule by divine right" was the "Natural Law" of Kings, and the rule by the will of the people was something new and different which had just came into it's own among the philosophical men of that era. It was a new principle of natural law, which rested upon the works of Rutherford, Burlamaqui, Grotius, Puffendorf, Wolf, & Vattel.
This idea that a people could leave a King was the assertion that men had a right to rule themselves, and not because the King was mean to them, but because they had a natural law right to do so! (This is why I say grievances are completely irrelevant.)
Your arguments squarely contradict the philosophical foundation of the Declaration. You would have us believe that some offense must occur before men have a right to rule themselves. The presumption of this argument is that if the King doesn't offend them, then they must remain his subjects.
This is absolutely wrong. People may rule themselves because they want to do so. No other reason is necessary. The founders listed reasons in an effort to curry support among the English Lords and Intellectuals of the period, and among the State of Europe. Not because they felt it was a requirement to gain independence. They had a right to independence regardless.
You just haven't delved into the philosophical background that created the foundation upon which the Declaration is based.
And how do you construe To prove [Tyranny over these States], let Facts be submitted to a candid world. D of I.
So here, yet again, we see DiogenesLamp arguing the superiority of his own scholarship over Founders' Original Intent.
DL claims, in effect, that since some Enlightenment philosophers said "X", our Founders must mean "X" even when they said "Y".
The answer to DL, of course, is that we must go by what the Founders said and meant, not by what certain philosophers of the time may have preached.
In this particular case -- the Declaration of Independence -- it was never an issue of "secession at pleasure", or for "light & transient causes", but rather of total necessity brought on by the King's abuses, usurpations and despotism culminating in his declaration of war on the American colonies.
In response our Founders declared independence, fully understanding, as Franklin quipped at the time:
Yes, of course Founders recognized Natural Law, but we do not recognize DiogenesLamp's interpretations of Natural Law as superior to our Founders' Original Intent as they themselves expressed & acted on it.