The problem with your argument is that one party to a contract can't arbitrarily decide the contract was violated by the other party, and then walk away from it.
If I contract you to put a roof on my house, and I decide you didn't do a satisfactory job, I can't simply say I'm not paying you, and that's the end of it, I win by proclamation. No.
Only if the legal authority over that contract, a judge and maybe a jury, decide that I have the right not to pay, is my refusal to pay legal.
According to you the roof should get to decide, after all it's what resulted from the contract. That makes as much sense as the feds getting to decide, they were only the result of the contract, they were not a party to it. So tell me, who would be the noninvolved unbiased arbiter? I've asked that question before, you didn't have the balls to answer.
When the law becomes intolerable, that's what rebellion is for. But rebellion is a rejection of the law of the land, and unless you win,
you are probably going to suffer serious consequences.
So your of the opinion the the solutions of the mid 19th century should be applied to political problems of the 21st. If it should come to it, I hope your wrong.