Don't twist the question. I want you to justify any reasoning for why you think they didn't. I've put forth the proof that they did. I've made my salient argument.
The ball is now in your court to top my legal argument.
Why did they not have the same right to leave as the colonies from Great Britain? It should have been even easier because the Precedent was established by our own government.
So, it appears that they did not have the right to secede, based on the reading of the US Constitution.
The Declaration is legally superior to the Constitution. The Declaration created the nation, and invokes the power of God for it's authority.
The Constitution, in contrast, is the second of two man-made documents outlining the "rules" of how such a government should operate, and is severely inferior to the Declaration in terms of moral and legal authority.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The Declaration creates governments. The Constitution merely operates them.
You state that “the Declaration is legally superior to the Constitution”. Exactly which orifice or your body did you pull this legal doctrine out of? If you could show me where (anywhere) the US Supreme Court made this ruling, I would be really (really) appreciative.
I will tell you why the colonies had the right to leave Great Britain. They won. In an earlier age it would have been said that, by winning, they had God’s grace. The CSA, on the other hand, lost.