Actually, the actions of the secessionists did not lead to war, the refusal of the Federal government to recognize these popular acts led to war.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. And the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the duty to interpret the Constitution and rule on what violates it and what does not. The Supreme Court has that duty, not the states or their legislatures or their agitators. The states knew that when they ratified it in the first place or petitioned for admission as states. The rules haven't changed so there is no reason for them to be surprised. There are no provisions for secession nor are there any provisions for rescinding their ratification other than those provided for amending the Constitution. Sorry, but that's the way it is and the way it will be until a future amendment or Supreme Court ruling changes things.
Jurisdiction over secession is not expressly delegated to the Federal government, so that issue must rest with the States. This was the understanding of the real Founding Fathers, the States Conventions. In each State Convention whose proceedings were recorded and handed down to us (Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia, New York, North Carolina), the Anti-Federalists warned that unspecified powers would be usurped by the Federal government. Federalists countered by stating over and over (I can give references if you like) that this was preposterous. No undelegated powers could possibly be assumed by the Federal government, since all Federal powers were specified in the grant. No Federal powers existed that were not specifically spelled out in the Constitution. Indeed, Federalists argued that a Bill of Rights would not only be unnecessary, but extremely dangerous. Future centralizers would point to the specified rights in the Bill of Rights and say that the list of specified rights in the BoR was all-inclusive and there were not other rights retained by the people, since they were not specified in the Constitution. The Bill of Rights ran the risk of being seen as restrictive, not merely as precaution. The drafters of the Bill of Rights avoided this pitfall with the wording of the IX and X Amendments.
Respectfully,
D J White
And why should you expect the Federal government to accept actions it saw as so completely illegal? If you were elected governor of Virginia and then banned future elections and proclaimed yourself governor for life should the Federal government accept that? If you announced that Virginia and South Carolina formed an alliance to prevent imports from New York should the Federal government accept that? Illegal actions are not to be ignored. And while we are on the subject how can you claim that the actions of the southern states in 1861 were 'popular acts' when only Texas of the original 7 states submitted the matter to a referendum?
Jurisdiction over secession is not expressly delegated to the Federal government, so that issue must rest with the States.
Jurisdiction over what was Constitutional and what was not was granted to the Supreme Court and every state knew that when they ratified it or accepted it as condition of statehood. And according to the Supreme Court the Union was permenant and unbreakable except with the agreement of 2/3rds of the parties involved. Chase made that clear in his decision. Nobody is saying that a state or state cannot leave the Union. But it must be done within the framework of the laws that all parties agreed to. And that framework is Article V.