I'm not the one who brought up sovereignty. You and your neo-confederate friends did. By the way, if they were fighting as a nation then why did the south have so much difficulty raising taxes or implementing a truly coordinated national military campaign? They essentially fought as a number of independent statewide militias who were sometimes able to coordinate and oftentimes were not.You can argue all you want whether they were an actual sovereign nation or not because it is not relevant to anything of importance. They fought as a nation and were fought against as a nation.
They are called elections. They had one in 1860 and we just had another in 2012. The point of a representative democracy is not to up and quit the nation if you lose the majority. There is also an process for amending the constitution. If there's an aspect of our government you do not like, gather your friends and amend the constitution in order to change it.Do you believe a people have a right to a government of their choosing?
Speaking of irrelevant, Lincoln's personal attitudes on the issue of race seem hardly important here. Truman was no fan of African Americans and used to love to tell jokes about 'the darkies' and yet he still desegregated the armed forces. Eisenhower also possessed more than his share of bigotry and prejudice but when the time came, he, like his predecessor Lincoln, could not abide a state government directly challenging the authority of the federal government and sent troops to Arkansas to enforce a Supreme Court ruling. Where these presidents' attitudes toward race do strike me as significant is that it demonstrates their ability to overcome their own personal limitations to ultimately do the right thing.