Revolution is a right of man. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln all believed that. But secession, a narrower constitutional concept is not revolution. The secessionists wanted to reap the fruits of revolution without having recourse to the long list of abuses that overcomes the proper adherence to established government as spoken of in the Declaration of Independence:
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes"
I believe that the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 is the perfect example of a light and transient cause that the Declaration speaks of.
There is always a trigger. There is always a spark. Secession occurred in 1860, and you see Lincoln as the cause. I say he was simply a spark.
From at least 1807 to 1860 there was a constant struggle between northern and southern interests. This was the major political issue for 3 generations. Congress was constantly seeking compromises and a balance of power was constantly negotiated. Meanwhile, presidents were elected either as supporters of southern interests or as neutral figures who did not want to rock the boat. From Jackson through Buchanan, no president supported northern interests in preference to southern interests.
Lincoln became a spark simply because he was the first northern sympathizer to hold the office of president since JQ Adams. The political situation was hardly "light and transient". It was, in fact, intractable. States rights had been a bone of contention for our entire history and with the election of Lincoln, it appeared likely that the northern interests would become permanently dominant.
It was time to change the government. The union of the several states had changed, and the imposition of northern will had proceeded to an intolerable point. It seems clear to me that this is very analogous to the situation that caused Jefferson to write the Declaration of Independence in the first place.
A free people should be free to decide if they wish to participate in a particular political entity. The people of SC voted, and decided to leave. There is nothing in the Constitution which says this was improper. Lincoln, however, decided that their vote was worth nothing, and he ended up raising an army to invade his own country and impose his will on sovereign states. There is nothing in the Constitution which allowed him to do that.
The revolution takes place in the hearts and minds of the population before the war. The war happens after the revolution and the secession.
The founders and the colonies seceded from the crown after the revolution of heart and mind turned the population against their former loyalties. The war that followed was entirely the doing of the British in their attempt to keep what they judged was theirs.
Secession happened because a significant percentage of the population had a change of heart and loyalties that were brought about by abuses and the people getting a taste of what real freedom was like.
Secession... They no longer wanted their lives and future to be influenced by those they had been previously associated with, so they proclaimed themselves sovereign nations and then created a loose federation of those nations and called it the united states.
It was a secession because they did not sail over to England and sack the king and the parliament, and whomever else they could get their hands on. They simply stated their independence from those that had previously controlled them then sought about governing themselves.
Secession is the moral way to end an association with folks you would be just as happy to bury.