Wrong:
The great Bacon observes, "that as exception strengthens the force of a law, in cases not excepted, so enumeration weakens it, in cases not enumerated." The powers vested in congress, the privileges of the members, and of each house, are severally enumerated in the constitution; not made exceptions from general powers, not enumerated.
George Tucker
The first legal treatise written after ratification and at the request of Congress says otherwise.
Your illegal argument fails.
-----
Ah, yes, but the problem was that the legal, political, and Constitutional process of ending slavery was well underway, and by the mid 1850s it was clear that the abolition of slavery was not only certain, but also would happen sooner rather than later.
LOL! Exactly what part of Madison's No power is given to the general government to interpose with respect to the property in slaves now held by the states. did you not understand?
The only 'legal, political, and Constitutional process of ending slavery' was for the owners to release the slaves.
------
There's very little that is honorable about what the south did, and why they did it. Their position is understandable, but it is not honorable.
If you think upholding the Constitution isn't honorable, then the very concept of the word escapes you.
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
The Federalist No. 45 January 1788, James Madison
A lovely quote that says precisely nothing about the ability of a party to unilaterally withdraw from a legal contract (your words) willingly entered into. Sorry, ma'am, but you're still out of luck.
The only 'legal, political, and Constitutional process of ending slavery' was for the owners to release the slaves.
In other words, as long as the individual slave holders thought slavery was OK, then it was OK for them to hold deny other human beings their unalienable rights.... Which is a rather ugly position for you to attempt to defend, I'm sure you'll agree.
If you think upholding the Constitution isn't honorable, then the very concept of the word escapes you.
You're the one who is explicitly defending slavery, ma'am. I'd be rather amazed if you find that at all honorable.