"How would history judge a president who failed to take any and all measures to preserve his country? Do we expect a president to be a moral icon, or do we expect him to do whatever it takes to defend the nation? Is a president, who adheres strictly to the law and the Constitution, but loses the war and allows the country to be destroyed, a patriot or a traitor?"

Bryan, this part of your post reminded me of at least one defense of the illegality of secession which I have read more than once.

The Constitution is silent on the subject of secession. Hence, pro-secessionists maintain secession was a legal right. To this, anti-secessionists often say (and here I paraphrase),

"It is absurd to imagine the framers would intentionally include in the Constitution, either by its presence or omission, a provision that would destroy the very nation they were creating"

Without putting words in your mouth, I sense from how you phrased these three questions you and I would answer your three questions the same way - whatever it takes to preserve the nation.

The philosophical conundrum (if there is one) is - that answer coincidentally comes down on the side of supporting the anti-secessionists and the illegality of secession.

So, I ask - from the standpoint only of this one reason, often used by the anti-secessionists, can we have it both ways, i.e., as Southerners - support the legality of secession, yet as Americans -side with the anti-secessionists on the preservation of the Union?

Note: I do not think I have intermixed 2007 thought with 1860's thought since I believe both points of view were present in the 1860s.