The 10th employs "catch-all" language. Going into the Constitutional Convention, the States were the Sovereigns. At no point did they surrender sovereignty in a total way. Read the document, the grants of Federal power are clear. If they had given up secession power, Lincoln would supply us with an exact reference to instead if vague references to "universal law." How convenient for him to use a law that no one can read or hear. He is the oracle of universal law for all mankind.

Tenth Amendment predates the war. Because of the tenth, secession is implied. Racism might be the motive, but targeting a motive instead of an argument is an informal fallacy (i.e. appeal to motive). All that aside, take off the post-war glasses. Before the war, states were considered the sovereign bodies (much as today's European Union). Finally, the legal precedent of Occidental history would suggest someone doesn't give up a right unless it is willing given (high std of proof).

The attack on the fort was an act of war by a foreign government, not treason.

Let's preach the Gospel to every creature and be as salt and light in our deeds

I'd like a Christ-centered constitution that expressly acknowledges the Scriptures as our basis for ethics

Suffering for Christ is a blessing and to be expected, but it'd be nice if some men didn't go out if their way to embolden evil by way of ignoring the sword of the magistrate ... for like murderers, child molesters, etc

You are restricting us when you prevent men from using the Law as a guide for regulating behavior. Did not God even judge the nations of Canaan for their gross immorality? Were they in Covenant with Him?