Replies

Revolution is a change in the hearts of the people that sometimes results in a change in government or allegiance(secession), and othertimes that inturn results in a violent war.
Revolution in itself does not necessarily result in war.
This is a curious distinction because even the corrupt hand picked(by unionist) Federal employees in Black robes after the war recognized that the right to revolution was a legitimate way outside of the union in their opinion.

As for the silence of the Federal Constitution on the matter, you will find that the Federal Constitution is by design silent on almost all matters of life and government for the rather specific propose that those matters are not subject to Washington's control. It makes no sense that a government which is to rule based upon the Consent of the Govern should have the authority to disregard said consent when withdrawn in the same manner in which it was originally given.
To demand that a new convention of our states should be necessary for any one state to withdraw by way of convention is to deny the fact no one state was ever admitted to this union by any act but their own.
That the only qualification for formation of that union was that 9 of the then preexisting confederation join, leaving the others out.
Artical 7 of the Federal Constitution after all says:
"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

The right of revolution and secession which in the case of democratic convention are parts of the same overall act. Secession being simply carrying out the result of revolution. Are not only reserved to the people. They are as the founders call inalienable.
Indeed I would say in theory it is not possible to create or sustain over time any form of free state without the right to revolution and secession. Which is why our founders reasoned that right was inalienable.

...corrupt hand picked(by unionist) Federal employees in Black robes...

Really? If you want to see corruption you need look no further than the corrupt hand picked(by by slavers) Federal employees in Black robes before the WBTS.

Every president up to and including Lincoln recognized the God-given right of revolution given sufficient cause. Sufficient cause for revolution did no exist in 1860. If you're going to rebel you had best have a righteous cause. The south did not and chose poorly.