What two relative nobodies thought or did has little significance in the larger scope of things. Jefferson Davis barely matters, because he was not driving events. I can think of very little that traces back to him that has any significance more so than when the Federal prosecutors dropped all charges against him.
The Declaration of Independence is based on the natural law of the right of rebellion.
Did a quick search of the document. The word "rebel" or "rebellion" is not in there at all. The idea of Independence is only "rebellion" to a nation that does not believe that people should be allowed independence from a larger Union.
We were in rebellion to England, which did not recognize any right to independence, but Southern states leaving the Northern states is not "rebellion", because this nation was founded on the right of Independence.
What was "rebellion", was fighting against states seeking Independence. This was completely inconsistent with the meaning of our own founding document. It was in fact, a great fear of the time, listed in Anti-Federalist paper #29. They were reassured this wouldn't happen, yet Lincoln made it happen.
Even Lincoln acknowledged this when he was a congressman.
Lincoln said that any people anywhere had a sacred right to independence. He said words to this effect twice. Once in 1848, (About Texas leaving Mexico) and again in 1852. (About Hungarian independence.)
To postulate that a "right" is only a "right" if you can beat someone in combat, makes it not a right. It is "Might makes right", which is like the very opposite of a higher principle. It's just brutal force, and if that's all it ever is, there is no need for flowery words or written laws. It's simply becomes strong man dominance.
Now apply your idea to slaves. My position is that slaves had a right to be free, even if it was beyond their power to defeat their masters. You see, their rights had nothing to do with their strength, and everything to do with their humanity.
Weak people have rights too. "Rights" are not just for the strong, they are for everyone.
People, including you and me, also have a right to look at the causes and reasons put forth by both sides and make a moral determination on who is in the right and who is in the wrong.
Do you get a moral veto for laws you don't like?
My position is that laws mean what they mean until they are changed in a lawful manner. Even those laws I disagree with should be respected until they are replaced.
We don't get to come along and say "I think this law is immoral, so I accept people breaking it."
The Confederates were completely within the law in doing what they did. They held a vote. The majority of their people chose to leave, and they left.
The same thing with their holding of slaves. It was completely lawful at the time they did it. The states could have pressured their congressmen and senators into passing a law to change this, but they never did.
People coming along and claiming "the law that allows them to do this is immoral, so we should not tolerate this", are making themselves into little dictators trying to force other people to do what they want.
If you are unfamiliar with this concept, see "slavery."
Small groups of people who believe something do not get to override what the majority chooses to do. The onus is on the minority opinion holders to convince the majority to their way of thinking, not to declare their position to be the law over the objections of the majority.
“...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form,...”
You can very rarely abolish something with kind thoughts and words. We may all agree that there are natural rights given by the creator, but for most of human history only a small percentage of people enjoyed such rights. The rest were peasants, serfs, or slaves with little to no say in what happened to them.
In this world might does make right. Without winning the revolution by force of arms most of the founding fathers would have been hung as traitors. Sadly not every group that has the might has a good cause and not every group that doesn’t have the might have a bad cause, and vice versa. When viewing these events in history it is up to us to use our brains to make a determination on who was in the right and who wasn’t.
There is no mention of secession in our constitution. No mention at all of any mechanism for a state to leave the union. But it does state that congress has the power “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;.”
On top of that Presidents prior to Lincoln had already set the precedent of using power in either words or deeds. First being George Washington when he called out and lead the militia to suppress the Whiskey rebellion. Then later when Andrew Jackson threatened to march down to South Carolina during the nullification crisis of 1832 and hang the leaders that were talking of secession.
You're not being logical. You have a moral right to freedom and self-determination, but you don't have the right to take it by force if there are other means of redressing your grievances and attaining your goals. In other words, your moral right isn't a legal right, a distinction that you love to make in other contexts. Take up the gun and you risk losing by the gun, because you have violated the laws.
Now apply your idea to slaves.
By all means, let's.
My position is that slaves had a right to be free, even if it was beyond their power to defeat their masters. You see, their rights had nothing to do with their strength, and everything to do with their humanity.
I'm not sure that is your position. If you thought that the right of slaves to be free was on the same level as the right of slaveowners to have their own country it might lead you to be more critical of the whole secessionist/Confederate enterprise.