I think it this case it helps to be precise with terms. Secession here is not a mere synonym for separation. It is a narrow phrase that is a supposed Constitutional concept. Knowing the difference, we can see that Lincoln was not inconsistent when he upheld the right of revolution on one hand and denied a right of secession on the other.
A rough way to consider the two concepts is to think while the Declaration of Independence equals revolution, the Constitution equals secession. But there is no mention or sanction of secession in the Constitution and the Declaration makes clear that the standard for undertaking revolution is a sober and considered response to a sustained and severe tyranny, not mere ire over idiotic leftist policies and certainly not petulant anger because Abraham Lincoln won an election. The Constitution does not provide the people a right to have a competent and wise president. As far as the Constitution is concerned, we have to live with Obama, the legal people's choice.
And I know some question Obama's Constitutional qualification, but the Constitutionally-sanctioned courts have ruled that he meets the requirements set forth in the Constitution.
Proof of any such ruling, please? The courts have refused full hearings on all cases that have not been dismissed.
See a partial list at Worldnetdaily.com