You” Isn't that what Lincoln said in so many words in the quote that I cited?
“If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?”
So what exactly is your complaint about what Lincoln said? You answer his question, “does it not require all to lawfully rescind it”? with “no”. Isn't a “breach” or a “violation” the antithesis of a lawful rescision?
Cordially,”
Shall we “Compare” the two competing arguments pertaining to the basic principals of why the war was waged?
Lincoln's Special Session Message to Congress, July 4, 1861
“Having never been States, either in substance or in name, outside of the Union, whence this magical omnipotence of “State rights,” asserting a claim of power to lawfully destroy the Union itself? Much is said about the “sovereignty” of the States, but the word even is not in the National Constitution, nor, as is believed, in any of the State constitutions. What is a “sovereignty” in the political sense of the term? Would it be far wrong to define it “a political community without a political superior”? Tested by this, no one of our States, except Texas , ever was a sovereignty. .”
Jefferson Davis’ Speech at Washington, D.C.
City Hall grounds, July 9, 1860
“What is our Union? A bond of fraternity, by the mutual agreement of sovereign States; it is to be preserved by good faith—by strictly adhering to the obligations which exist between its friendly and confederate States. Otherwise we should transmit to our children the very evil under which our fathers groaned—a government hostile to the rights of the people, not resting upon their consent, trampling upon their privileges, and calling for their resistance.”
Which man is correct? Let's us take a peek...
Madison again:
The Constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the states, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority of the Constitution, that it rests on this legitimate and solid foundation. The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and, consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.
Lincoln was dead wrong and 600,000+ Americans died because of it.
The simple reasoning is this:
If the compact has been violated, then the parties to the compact may cry 'foul' and nullify it, or to be more precise none, one, any or all parties (viz. the states) may choose each for itself to secede.
The contraversy is whether there has been such a violation. In my opinion there have been many such, but my opinion doesn't determine anything, only the opinion of a sovereign majority of one of the states. It is this political decision or act that counts.