You've got it all twisted up. Rule of law you say. It was your hero, that butchering son of a bitch Lincoln and your union thuggery, which was chugged full of Marxist 48ers that fully and completely ruined this Constitutional Republic.
It was the South that wished for the law to carry the day. When the South finally had enough of your New England mentality, and those broken agreements that go with it, they said Adios.
That war was about much more than slavery. No other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union.
By the way, they had every right to secede.
Daniel Webster 1851:
"If the South were to violate any part of the Constitution intentionally and systematically, and persist in so doing, year after year, and no remedy could be had, would the North be any longer bound by the rest of it? And if the North were deliberately, habitually, and of fixed purpose to disregard one part of it, would the South be bound any longer to observe its other obligations? I have not hesitated to say, and I repeat, that if the Northern States refuse, willfully and deliberately, to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and Congress provide no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain cannot be broken on one side and still bind the other side.
Here is James Madison and what he said during the Virginia Ratification Convention:
That resolution declares that the powers granted by the proposed Constitution are the gift of the people, and may be resumed by them when perverted to their oppression, and every power not granted thereby remains with the people, and at their will. It adds, likewise, that no right, of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the general government, or any of its officers, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for these purposes. There cannot be a more positive and unequivocal declaration of the principle of the adoption — that every thing not granted is reserved. This is obviously and self-evidently the case, without the declaration.
Here is Mr. Nicholas from that same event:
Mr. NICHOLAS contended that the language of the proposed ratification would secure every thing which gentlemen desired, as it declared that all powers vested in the {626} Constitution were derived from the people, and might be resumed by them whensoever they should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and that every power not granted thereby remained at their will. No danger whatever could arise; for, says he, these expressions will become a part of the contract. The Constitution cannot be binding on Virginia, but with these conditions. If thirteen individuals are about to make a contract, and one agrees to it, but at the same time declares that he understands its meaning, signification, and intent, to be, (what the words of the contract plainly and obviously denote,) that it is not to be construed so as to impose any supplementary condition upon him, and that he is to be exonerated from it whensoever any such imposition shall be attempted, — I ask whether, in this case, these conditions, on which he has assented to it, would not be binding on the other twelve. In like manner these conditions will be binding on Congress. They can exercise no power that is not expressly granted them.
The rebellion was about slavery for the south. Putting down the rebellion was about the UNION for the north, which is not letting the minority end the Union that had been established by all the states in 1789. Secession could, to my mind be accomplished legally, either by amendment (3/4s of states) or by federal suit. Not by unilateral action of a state, as was ruled in Texas V. White
No doubt secession could be legal. Just the way the rebels did it wasn’t.