Ha! Nice try, FRiend.
If you have been following these postings, then you know one core of my argument is that the Deep South slave-holders' secession was unconstitutional because it did not meet the criteria established by our Founders' Original Intent.
According to our Founders, secession could only be with "mutual consent," or from "oppression", "usurpation" or "abuse", etc., having that same effect.
My case here is that nothing, nothing which happened in 1860 or before met those criteria, and therefore the Deep South slave-holders' secession was unconstitutional.
As for National Defense, that is a Constitutionally enumerated power of our Federal Government, so, yes we might question whether our military should better consume say 2% or 3% of GDP, instead of today's 4% -- but that is strictly a discussion of military and political necessity, not Constitutionality.
Is it your premise that concern over future events is not a legitimate reason to take preventative action?
In other words, do you believe that a person or group of people must actually be damaged before they seek remedy?