Awaken - Do you think it's possible to have a democracy if people simply secede when they disagree with the majority?
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes."
People may have a right to rebel but does that mean the government has no right to try to quell that rebellion? Lincoln took an oath to preserve the union, it was his responsibility to do so. It was not the responsibility of anyone in the South to break up the union. Lincoln took an oath to preserve the Constitution, which is silent on secession. The responsiblity of the South: "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government."
The Northwest Ordinance, written by one founding father, Thomas Jefferson, and signed by another, George Washington, specifically outlawed slavery in western territories. Were the Southerners not undermining the intentions of the founders when they spread slavery to western territories and insisted on continuing to do so? fwiw, the NW Ordinance pre-dates the Constitution, so I am not sure how/if laws under the Articles of Confederation carried over. The slavery issue was known and not dealt with by our FF. The NW Ordinance is them kicking the can down the road (much like our politicians today with the deficit). Yes, the South was trying to make sure new states were slave states so their interests could be protected in the Senate.
Furthermore, the fathers did not speak of secession, so it might be very misleading to infer that they were for it. See DOI. Why would the fathers have been interested in breaking up the state that they had risked their lives to bring into being. Because they realized that their creation could be corrupted into tyranny. The existence of the state on the other hand implies perpetuity. And this would particularly be the case with a democracy. The Articles of Confederation say that, but not the Constitution. Where are you getting this?
The marriage analogy in your application is very misleading. Indeed, it would seem to support Lincoln's point that secession was only possible if both parties agreed. A divorce requires mutual consent, if there is no mutual agreement, a higher authority, the state can still grant one. What would be the higher authority that would grant secession, if it was not mutually agreed to? I suppose the same higher authority that granted our independence from England.
Marriage can also be viewed as a contract. Just as the entry of a state into the union can be viewed as a contract. Contracts can be broken up with mutual consent. If this is lacking and one party does not honor the contract unilaterally, the other is entitled to try to force them to honor it. Again, I think the DOI speaks to this.
I really like the South and southerners but they were wrong on both slavery and secession.