Whatever "unconstitutional" actions Lincoln foisted on the southern states, they brought it all on themselves. Ditto for northern Copperheads who found themselves jailed or removed for seditious actions during the war. I find it risable that you're outraged about Lincoln appointing governors (oh, the horror!!! ) more than some states retaining the institution of slavery.
Here you are ignoring the 9th and 10th Amendments -- these are as follows:
Amendment IXClearly, the 9th says that just because it [a right] is not enumerated doesn't mean it doesn't exist: a good example is travel. Would a government that required you get its permission for every movement be considered free or the embodiment of liberty? What if that restriction was only to the place of residence: would that be free? Thus it is entirely possible that there is a right of secession that is retained by the people.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
In contrast, the 10th says that the powers not specifically delegated to the federal government are retained by either the States or the people. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a reference to the "perpetual union" -- therefore, constitutionally it cannot be said that the States (or people) do not have the power to secede.
In short, you are using the assertion that secession was illegal as the basis from which to reject any argument for [the legitimacy of] secession. Indeed, in your view the federal government can utterly ignore the Constitution's requirements and restraints and there is utterly no recourse the people or States can take. This is likely compounded by a popular, though incorrect, idea that "the constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is." (If the Constitution is what the USSC says, then it is not the Court under the Constitution's authority, but the Constitution under the Court's.)
Whatever "unconstitutional" actions Lincoln foisted on the southern states, they brought it all on themselves. Ditto for northern Copperheads who found themselves jailed or removed for seditious actions during the war.
So then the perpetration of some injustice is grounds for ignoring injustices committed in pursuing [punishments] so long as you agree? Government agents can legitimately commit felonies in perusing misdemeanors? Any transgression of the law frees agents of that law from following it themselves?
I find it risable that you're outraged about Lincoln appointing governors (oh, the horror!!! ) more than some states retaining the institution of slavery.
Slavery was already starting to go; it is notable that many Western powers abolished slavery without a civil war -- what, then, was the difference between them and the States? Jesus said that a good tree does not produce bad fruit (nor a bad tree good fruit), but things like appointing governors were certainly the fruit of the Civil War: others were the bullying of States to [ensure] adoption of Constitutional amendments. -- If then, the fruits of the Civil War was more central control [and, arguably, more tyranny], what does that say of the [real] causes of that war?
Secession is “illegal”? Please tell me what law it breaks? Why were never any Confederate officials tried for secession? What part of the Constitution told the states the union would be permanent so they could know before they ratified it?
“More than some states retaining the institution of slavery”
Wow, that is a real brick wall nonsequitur, there.