No. I utterly reject your premise. There are no "Conditions" on the right to independence.
You repeatedly misinterpret the article of the Constitution known as the the slave clause.
No, it is your side which refuses to acknowledge it for what it is. The Founders were loath to put the word "Slavery" into the constitution, but the Slave holding states would have balked at agreeing to it without some safeguard for their concerns.
It *IS* a runaway slave clause. That is EXACTLY what it is, and it was routinely broken by most of the Union States because they didn't like it. Joseph Story gave them a legal "fig leaf" for doing so with his Prigg v Pennsylvania ruling; a ruling that has caused a lot of damage way beyond just the issue of slavery.
Blame your 750,000 dead on the Slave Aristocracy.
They didn't invade anyone. They didn't even kill anyone until they were invaded. The blood shed started with the Union trying to stop Independence for people who had a right to it.
They called themselves the Confederacy. But it didn't work. Independence is something you have to fight for and win.
Not when it is supposed to be the accepted foundational law of the existing Nation.
Fighting for independence from a Monarchy which never recognized such a right is one thing, but fighting for independence from a nation that explicitly states this right as justification for it's own Independence is simply bizarre.
And what did Abraham Lincoln have to say about this right to Independence?
Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. 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. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones.
He was of course, speaking about Texas, who's independence he supported when it was breaking away from Mexico, but who's independence he absolutely opposed when it was breaking away from him.
You have no moral argument for killing people who sought independence, and you and your side are constantly trying to trump the greater moral issue of a right to Independence with the lesser moral issue of slavery, because it is the only weapon you have in your arsenal.
You are desperate to justify the murders committed by a despotic and tyrannical government in suppressing the rights to independence for others, and so you keep coming back to the tired old "But... but... Slavery!" argument.
No, a johnny come lately after the fact justification based on slavery does not absolve you of the murders committed for what was really a case of power and money.
Of course there are, and it's pure fantasy to claim otherwise.
Our Founders certainly never did.
All recognized that legitimate disunion required one or both of 1) mutual consent or 2) necessity from unlawful government.