Um, no. Lincoln is emphatic:
"This is a most valuable,-- most sacred right--a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement.Lincoln is not speaking of armed revolution - which is not a right at all, but simply the exercise of raw military power. He's not referring to revolution in the modern sense - the fight to overthrow an existing government and seize control - he's referring to what the Colonies exercised - the RIGHT of SELF-GOVERNMENT. And he states that the idea should spread, "which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world." He's not calling for wars to occur on a massive scale, he's hoping that repressed people everywhere will do exactly what the colonies did - secede from their existing government, and form one that is ideally suited to their needs and desires.
Speaking of reading the speech, I especially like his comment about the "half insane mumbling of a fever-dream".
Clearly what Lincoln is saying isn't that states can unilaterally renounce the Union...
Lincoln said, "Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory as they inhabit." Nowhere does he state that they must beg permission, instead they have the right to "shake off the existing government".
He's speaking of the Texas Revolution, which, if I recall correctly, was an armed affair. The historical context for his concept of the "Right of Rebellion" can be found in Locke and Blackstone, who were writing out of the experience of the "Grand Rebellion", i.e, the English Civil War, another armed affair. Clearly it's a nice fantasy that tyrants, real or perceived, will simply roll over when someone becomes upset with them, but that's usually not the real world, except when the US pressures some shah or presidente to get on a plane and go to the Riviera.
He's not calling for wars to occur on a massive scale, he's hoping that repressed people everywhere will do exactly what the colonies did - secede from their existing government, and form one that is ideally suited to their needs and desires.
He could also be calling for a slave uprising in the south. Would you have supported such as a legitimate revolution that the southern states had no right to oppose?
Nowhere does he state that they must beg permission,
Indeed not. But he does say, "that can, may."
Look, I'm not denying that the south had a natural right to rebel (as did Texas against Mexico, West Virginia against Virginia, or slaves against their masters), but I'm saying that the Constitution doesnt allow a state, having joined the union only with the permission of the other states, to unilaterally withdraw from it. Either ask permission or be prepared to fight. But don't just childishly insist on having your way, despite the rules, then throw a temper tantrum when you're told you can't and start shelling US troops.