That is very poor reasoning and ignores facts too numerous to mention. As I noted above, the EP was so limited because Lincoln felt that his Constitutional authority was so limited. The Confederates were not advocating "states' rights", they were advocating slavery. They protested the exercise of state power by Northern states to limit the ill effects of the Fugitive Slave Law, they seceded with declarations which made it very clear that their position was "thoroughly identitfied with the institution of slavery", and they adopted a Confederate Constitution which forbade any Confederate state from abolishing slavery.
Slavery as an institution was still legal under Lincoln and the gov't in Washington, D.C. for two more years in the United States (Northern States) than in the Confederacy.
Slavery was legal during the entire existence of the Confederacy, while in the U.S. it was abolished as soon as the Republicans could overcome the Democrats. The 13th Amendment was passed by Congress as soon as the Republicans gained firm control (i.e. the necessary 2/3) of Congress during the 1864 election, and the only thing holding up ratification by 3/4 of the states was reconstruction of enough Southern states to do so.
Or if you maintain that slavery was legal under Confederate law then you must acknowledge the legitimacy of the Confederacy !
The Confederates had de facto control of the "Confederate States", so they enforced their laws and preserved slavery as long as they maintained control of those areas -- regardless of their "legitimacy".
Perhaps Farrakhan and his fellow travelers should cast their efforts eastward ?