And how do you construe To prove [Tyranny over these States], let Facts be submitted to a candid world. D of I.
Why are you interpreting "should" as "shall"? I interpret the word "should" as indicating an option, not as indicating a requirement.
And how do you construe To prove [Tyranny over these States], let Facts be submitted to a candid world. D of I.
Again, this statement does not assert a requirement that facts must be submitted before independence is valid. The argument of the natural law philosophers of that era were that Men had a right to self governance, and they did not need a King to rule them. They could rule themselves.
For some reason, you are offering the argument that the US would not have had a right to independence if the King hadn't abused them. You are arguing that had the King been kind and benevolent, we would have no right to leave his authority.
The natural law right asserted by the Declaration is that men have a right to rule themselves, and do not have to obey a King, no matter how he treats them.
Read Samuel Rutherford's (Cited in the debates on the Constitution) "Lex Rex."