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.
The problem here is the definition of 'revolution'. Today it means the violent overthrow of an existing government - which is NOT what Lincoln hopes will spread around the world. In context, the 'revolution' - as in revolutionary idea - that Lincoln advocates is the idea that the common man has the God given right to self-government - no royal blood necessary, and that Any group of people can and should form the government which best suits their goals.
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?
Strange that you would consider that legitimate, but Southern secession illegal. But to answer your question - yes, I firmly believe that every person has the right to associate with those that share their beliefs, and form a common government for their mutual benefit. But do I support a rebellion wherein people wantonly slaughter men, women and children - no.
I'm saying that the Constitution doesn't allow a state, having joined the union only with the permission of the other states, to unilaterally withdraw from it.
Of course you don't, that would mean Lincoln's war was an illegal war of subjugation wouldn't it? But the problem you have legally is that the Constitution has only the powers delegated to it by the states - each state retains all powers not delegated to the federal government via the Constitution, excepting any the Constitution prohibits them from exercising. There is NO clause that grants the federal government any power to retain a state (the use of force against a state was denied twice during debates), and the Constitution lacks any clause preventing a state from seceding from the union.