“It sure does live. It had very little to do with slavery. It was all about States rights.”
Whether or not Secession had anything to do with slavery is really irrelevant. I mean we can talk about how clear the north made it that they were not fighting over slavery, or how the South had many other reasons for leaving. All of that however is thoughts and opinions of people in conflict.
The real point is the right of secession and its role in retaining a fair and legitimate Constitutional Government subject to the Consent of the Governed.
Frankly without the right of revolution/secession all people and their states are prisoner subjects of the Federal Government just like the colonies were claimed so by the British empire. That of course invariably leads to abuse and tyranny not consent of the governed or constitutional government for that matter.
Lincoln’s arguments against secession were all specious on the grounds his understanding of contract law under a system of 3rd party judges & law superseding natural law. Even more hypocritically they came in direct opposition of his earlier pre-presidential opinion on the subject of the inherit right of revolution. Thus painting Lincoln and his supporters as power crazed and corrupted despots, more upset that some people did not want to be submit to their rule than anything else.
Everyone knew that secession wasn't defined in the constitution but everyone also knew that the only way to get into the union was through mutual consent. So any honest attempt at leaving the union had to occur the same way.
Only the south chose violent revolution instead of negotiated secession - they just tacked on the name to make themselves feeeeeeeeeel better about the betrayal they were committing.
There was nothing specious or hypocritical to it.