If it's purely subjective whether a right to revolution exists, it's subjective all the way around. Your subjective assertion that your rights are being violated conflicts with my assertion that they aren't and the result is war. That's the result of radical subjectivism in politics.
But it's not even that your "rights" were being violated, it's that you think that they might possibly be violated some day. That doesn't sound like a real rationale for revolution or rebellion. There was something opportunistic about secession: the leaders were trying to exploit a momentary panic. They weren't committed to working within the nation, but were using the emotionalism of the moment to enhance their own power.
Moreover, Lincoln knew and was friends with Alexander Stephens. He was in Congress with Stephens, Toombs, Cobb, and Rhett. They knew him. They knew what he was like. They knew that the hysteria about Lincoln's election didn't reflect what the man was actually like. They knew he wasn't a true abolitionist. But they chose -- for whatever reasons of their own -- to go along with the hysteria and promote it, rather than discourage it.
No it wouldn't have, but it is not unreasonable for those people to have believed at the time that every obstacle against it would have been thrown at them by the Lincoln administration.
There would have been no proclamation or legal justification for it if there wasn't a war going on.
And a war made it legal? What part of the constitution was that under?
If it's purely subjective whether a right to revolution exists, it's subjective all the way around. Your subjective assertion that your rights are being violated conflicts with my assertion that they aren't and the result is war.
King George did not agree with the colonists that they had been abused. They thought they had. Citing their example, I would suggest that the precedent is to favor the dissatisfied people, not the advocate of the status quo.
But it's not even that your "rights" were being violated, it's that you think that they might possibly be violated some day. That doesn't sound like a real rationale for revolution or rebellion. There was something opportunistic about secession: the leaders were trying to exploit a momentary panic. They weren't committed to working within the nation, but were using the emotionalism of the moment to enhance their own power.
And so the public was stampeded into wanting independence. Tell me, how closely have you studied the founding era? Only 1/3 of the population was truly committed to independence. Another ~ 1/3 was opposed, and the remaining 1/3 was apathetic.
I would say the fact that they got it past a vote is sufficient legitimization for the direction they wished to take their states.
Moreover, Lincoln knew and was friends with Alexander Stephens. He was in Congress with Stephens, Toombs, Cobb, and Rhett. They knew him. They knew what he was like. They knew that the hysteria about Lincoln's election didn't reflect what the man was actually like. They knew he wasn't a true abolitionist. But they chose -- for whatever reasons of their own -- to go along with the hysteria and promote it, rather than discourage it.
And this is true. Lincoln was likely not a real threat to the institution of slavery. He could trim off a bit of it around the edges, but he would never really be able to do anything about the main body of it given his limited power.
People in the know would have realized this, so what possible motive could they have had for seizing upon the situation to demand independence?
I always say "follow the money." Who gains? Who loses?
You and I know that the Wealthy in the South would have gained immensely from independence. They would see an immediate boom in their sales and profits. The general economy in their area would have also profited, but it would have benefited the wealthy and powerful the quickest and the most.
Who would lose? New York and surrounding areas.