Agreed, and since there is no recourse to abuse within the limits of the Constitution, to which the South acknowledged they were bound - thus the need for secession.
To resist the lawful execution of national policy is to invite enforcement, which is to say, violence.
Had they remained within the Union and demanded the benefits thereof as a member state, I would agree with you. Once they have 'left the fold' then 'national policy' no longer applies; thus a guarantee that 'naional policy' will remain in the best interests of the people.
For something called "secession" to occur with any hope of peace, all the parties to the compact would have had to agree to it, or at least to agree to a process from which it would be decided. That wasn't the case.
However, the South knew that they were outmatched in any nationally representative body and no such agreement was possible. That they did not attempt it, IMO, was still a mistake.
You can't undo the Constitution--or your obligation to it--just because you don't agree with policy, or the outcome of an election. That's anti-republican. It's anarchy.
I don't think that even you agree with such a blanket statement. If such is the case, then no resistance to tyrants is justified.
I have discussed the question of anarchy at length with others. My opinion has always been (and remains) that anarchy is a logical impossibility -- due to the nature of man it can never happen in sustained fashion. If all authority were dissolved tomorrow, the first thing people would do is begin forming alliances for self-protection (i.e. forming pseudo-governments and granting them authority, negating the notion of anarchy).
Reason? Or excuse put forward by 21st century revisionist. The fact of the matter is that in the year prior to the rebellion almost 95% of all tariff income was collected in three Northern ports. If the south was so dependent on imports, if they paid such a large part of the tarrif, then why didn't those goods go directly to the consumers? The fact of the matter is that the south did pay a disproportionate share of the tariff, a disproportionately low share.
However, the South knew that they were outmatched in any nationally representative body and no such agreement was possible.
Others don't agree with you.
"But again, gentlemen, what do we have to gain from this proposed change of our relationship with the general government? We have always had control of it, and can yet, if we remain in it, and are as united as we have been. We have had a majority of Presidents chosen from the south; as well as the control and management of most of those chosen form the North. We have had sixty years of Southern Presidents to their twenty four, thus controlling the Executive Department. So of the judges of the Supreme Court, we have had eighteen from the South, and but eleven from the North; although nearly four-fifths of the judicial business has arisen in the Free States, yet a majority of the Court has always been from the South. This we have required so as to guard against any interpretation of the Constitution unfavorable to us. In like manner we have been equally watchful to guard our interest in the Legislative branch of government. In choosing the presiding Presidents (pro Tempore) of the Senate, we have had twenty-four to their eleven. Speakers of the House, we have had twenty-three, and they twelve. While the majority of Representatives, from their greater population, have always been from the North, yet we have so generally secured the Speaker, because he, to a great extent, shapes and controls the legislation of the country. Nor have we had less control in every other department of the general government. Attorney-Generals we have had fourteen, while the North have had but five. Foreign ministers we have had eighty-six, and they but fifty-four. While three-fourths of the business which demands diplomatic agents abroad is clearly from the Free States, from their greater commercial interests, yet we have had the principle embassies, so as to secure the world markets for our cotton, tobacco, and suger on the best possible terms. We have had the vast majority of the higher officers of both army and navy, while a larger proportion of the soldiers and sailors were drawn from the North. Equally so of Clerks, Auditors, and Comptrollers filling the Sxecutive department; the records show that for the last fifty years, of the three thousand thus employed, we have had more than two-thirds of the same, while we have but one-third of the white population of the Republic." - Alexander Stephens, January 1861
That's an inadmissable leap. States do not withhold the right to abrogate their responsibilities at their convenience, whether or not they continue to demand the "benefits" as a "member" state. They are not mere members of a league. They are parties to a compact. Did all the states not report delegates in the Presidential election of 1860? Last I checked, they all did. States cannot ditch those results when it pleases. It's not allowed under the Constitution. You can't dodge it.