[DiogenesLamp]

They rebelled against a MONARCHY stupid! No one elected a monarchy.

They didn't elect Lincoln, and so far as he behaved, he was the closest thing to a Monarch we've ever had. I dare say no other President so abused his powers as this man, but Woodrow Wilson locking up some 35 thousand political prisoners comes close. I suppose Roosevelt does too.

But the form of government is irrelevant to the right of independence. A lot of dictators claim they are a Republic or a Democracy, but they are in fact dictatorships.

[jmacusa]

So no one in the South cast a vote for Lincoln? Is that what you’re saying?

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "They didn't elect Lincoln, and so far as he behaved, he was the closest thing to a Monarch we've ever had."

Republicans in 1860 nominated Lincoln precisely because he was as back-woods as anyone could be.
Indeed, the dramatic devices they used to sell him were great long pieces of split-rail fencing, brought into the 1860 convention hall itself to prove their slogan: "Lincoln the rail-splitter" -- these are the rails he split, they said.
Those fence-rails won over the hearts & souls of Republicans then, in the same way that Donald Trump's great building successes win us over today -- he was a doer not afraid to get his hands dirty.

The claim that Lincoln was considered "monarchial" is further belied by "Ape Lincoln" political cartoons of the time:

DiogenesLamp: "I dare say no other President so abused his powers as this man, but Woodrow Wilson locking up some 35 thousand political prisoners comes close.
I suppose Roosevelt does too. "

If you consider the United States four biggest wars -- Revolution, Civil & World Wars One & Two -- Lincoln did less violence to the Constitution & human rights than Americans did in any of the others.

1. Revolution -- loyalists to Britain tarred, feathered, driven into exile, property confiscated, sometimes executed by patriots.

2. First World War -- Wilson arrested & jailed thousands of German-Americans.

3. Second World War -- FDR interred Japanese, German and Italian Americans suspected to subversive activities.

Yes, Lincoln did arrest Confederate sympathizers, but not as whole categories -- i.e., Japanese Americans -- nor did he seize their properties as was done with British loyalists during the Revolution and Japanese Americans in WWII.

So Lincoln's actions were in no way inconsistent with what came before and after him, except to be more limited in scope.

DiogenesLamp: "But the form of government is irrelevant to the right of independence."

No, it's 100% relevant if constitutionally elected and governing.
No Founder ever proposed or endorsed unilateral unapproved declaration of secession at pleasure.