Your fallacy here is in thinking that the edicts of men compel other men to obey. The Natural Law foundation of our own independence argues that God grants certain rights to men, and that other men are powerless to take them away.
Now you claim to be against slavery in general, so what is the difference between slavery and forced allegiance? Does not Washington DC eat out our substance and harass us with swarms of officials?
If one kind of slavery is bad, then so too is another.
"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
-Thomas Jefferson-
Even the Slavers knew that, and that it would never get out constitutionally so they held an insurrection better named “the RAT Rebellion”.
Nobody knew that. Massachusetts threatened to secede numerous times. The Textbook that was taught at West Point when Robert E Lee attended was "A View of the Constitution" by William Rawle, and it explicitly says that States have a right to leave the Union.
Massachusetts was being crippled by Jefferson’s embargo and it never ATTACKED the US.
Natural law can mean nothing to one who believes slavery is just. It is the worst manifestation of disobedience to Natural Law.
It does not matter what a lawyer says just what the constitution says. And what the meaning of a “constitution” is.