My point is this: since Lincoln abolished the right of secession, he has made it all but impossible for any future lovers of liberty to secede, no matter how just the cause may be. I dare say that secession and rebellion against tyranny is a basic human right and responsibility. To have it abolished by force of arms is a tragedy, not a victory.
Lincoln never abolished the right of secession.
The right to secede was lost when the South lost the war.
Had they won the war then the right of secession would have been confirmed. Hence the statement that winning in war is all that counts. If war is the choice, it is all or nothing. .
I dare say that those in charge of the South, i.e., Southern Slave Power were not "lovers of liberty". They were the opposite. Stop kidding yourself that this was a situation of "secession and rebellion against tyranny". That is pure and unadulterated self delusion. This was a separation by the southern slave states, and only the southern slave states in order to maintain their tyranny over their slaves.
I posit ye this: would the Confedacy have allowed a non-slave State into their Confederacy? Would they have accepted a Northern State? I'll make it easy for you, the answer to both questions is, "no". The founding principle of the Confederacy was that the white man was superior to the black man. Their plan was take their Empire based on Slavery and spread it west, then south through Central America, then across the top of South America and thence onward to Cuba.
The South's right to secession, which they didn't have in the first place since they didn't run it through the Congress, ended with the attack on Fort Sumter.