Since I don’t believe what the southern states did was secession I can’t answer the question as you posted it to me. Now do I believe why people invoke the natural right to revolution matters? Yes, I do. Why? Because human beings are moral creatures and we make moral judgements about ours and other people’s actions.
Let me use a hypothetical what if to demonstrate my point. Let’s imagine the King George and Parliament listened to our founding fathers, gave them representation in Parliament, allows them to run their affairs here, etc. and we do not become an independent country.(or in your view states)
Now fast forward to 1833. The British empire outlaws slavery. The American colonies rebel (for the sake of this hypothetical the northern states still have slavery) and issue a Declaration of Independence. This version is written by a colonial from Mississippi and the second paragraph states-
“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.”
Now compare that to the second paragraph in the actual Declaration of Independence-
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, 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, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.
I believe that any reasonable person after reading those two paragraphs would say the second group of people had both better cause and more moral reason for rebelling.
I don't think many, if any, who argue that Southern secession was legal are motivated by racism. I think most argue from other perspectives.
Speaking for myself, I never used to think about this issue until I saw California and New York getting crazier and crazier, and this has led me to feel like a member of a chain gang that is chained to a batsh*t crazy psychopath.
California frightens me. New York frightens me. They have great economic power coupled with batsh*t crazy ideas, not the least of which is unapologetic support for socialism.
I have been thinking about getting free of them for a long time, but whenever I would broach the subject, most people would say, "Wasn't that decided by the civil war? States don't have a right to separate."
So the topic became more interesting to me. On what basis is the claim made that states don't have a right to secede? Did not the Declaration of Independence guarantee exactly this right? So my thinking has gone.
I know not how many others argue for secession on the basis of crazy states motivating them to want free, but I would say a lot of people might be motivated by being descendant from the States or people being discussed. I think others, such as Ohioan, are deep natural law thinkers, and see the conflict from a more objective perspective.
Now fast forward to 1833. The British empire outlaws slavery.
In the existing timeline. Me, being ever confident in the evil nature of mankind, postulate that if the British were making a whole lot more money off of slavery (as they were off of drug dealing in China), they wouldn't have outlawed it in 1833.
The outlawing of slavery in England was the consequence of a lot of clever legislative tricks on the part of William Wilberforce. Had his opposition been any greater than it was, his tactics would never have worked.
With the slave states remaining part of England, England would most assuredly not have abolished slavery in 1833.
“Let me use a hypothetical what if to demonstrate my point. Let’s imagine . . .”
Yes, let’s imagine 13 slave states that claim they want freedom.
Let’s imagine representatives of the 13 slave states approve a declaration of independence. Let’s image that over 70 percent of the signers of the declaration own slaves themselves.
Let’s image the text of their declaration includes this charge against the leader of the mother country: “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions.”
Would these circumstances, and that language, disqualify the slave states from instituting a government that derived its just powers from the consent of the governed?