What I know is only my belief that to argue for states rights on the basis of “consent of the governed”, whilst owning slaves, is hypocritical.
That is an interesting comment.
“Consent of the governed” is a concept found in the Declaration of Independence - but not until the third sentence. The DOI was signed by representatives of the original 13 states, 13 of which were slave states.
Is it your belief that the original 13 states were disqualified from seeking independence and freedom from Britain because of their involvement with slavery before, during, and after the Revolutionary War?
I don't agree with that because if that's your argument then everything that was done prior to passage of the 19th amendment in 1920 or even the Civil Rights movement in the 60s which ensured Blacks the right to vote was "hypocritical" since most people or a large minority could not vote.
That's a modern understanding....ie to be a "real" Democracy all adults must be able to vote. That is a standard no country on earth met in the late 18th century and hardly any did even in the late 19th century. So yes, even though the franchise was limited in ways nobody would believe legitimate today, the states were still far more democratic than most in the mid 19th century. So yes, consent of the governed - as understood at the time - was perfectly legitimate.