Yes, I have heard of Dred Scott.
Most of the rest of the world managed to abolish slavery without war. Lincoln was a tyrant.
That's an opinion, not based on anything in the Constitution. And the fact is the North didn't go to war when the South succeeded. Lincoln was content to try to persuade the south to return until they attacked Fort Sumter.
A couple of last points to think about, then I’ll let it rest. I can certainly see how the original southern states felt they had every to secede, since they had joined voluntarily. But what about the western states? With The exception of Texas they were not independent countries that joined the USA voluntarily. They were the creation of the United States government. In the case of Louisiana and Arkansas they would have still been French if the USA hadn’t purchased them.
As far as the Constitution being silent on the issue, the framers were very exacting in designing the Constitution including mechanisms for changing it. It seems to me that their decision not to include a mechanism for states to withdrawal implies that they rejected such a right. If there was a widespread agreement that states could secede, they surely would have made such an allowance explicit.
I really have a lot of sympathy for both sides in the Civil War. My ancestors fought on both sides. I think it’s absurd to call the Southerners who fought for their home states “traitors”. OTOH I don’t buy the neo-Confederate revisionist history that tries to downplay the role of slavery that was clearly at the root of the matter. And I get offended when some (not you) call those who don’t buy their spin “ignorant”.