Was the ratification process of the 14th Amendment constitutional?

The recent birthright citizenship case got me reading up on the 14th amendment and its origins, including how it was ratified. The more I read up on it the more troubled I became about its legitimacy.

- The Congress that proposed the 14th amendment did not include Southern States, meaning there was never a 2/3 vote in favor of the amendments, as required by Article V.

- Southern States were forced to ratify the 14th amendment, or they were put under military rule and not allowed representation in Congress - this possibly (likely) violates the 10th amendment plus numerous case law. Some states' ratifications were passed by said Reconstruction Act military governments, not by democratically elected governments.

- The Reconstruction Act itself was of questionable constitutionality. Attempts to litigate the constitutionality of the Reconstruction Act were prevented by Congress (out of fear that it would be struck down) and many legal scholars both today and back then had doubts about the Reconstruction Act's constitutionality.

- Some states attempted to withdraw ratification, but they were ignored.

Unfortunately, after reading up on this I came to the conclusion that consent for the 14th amendment (and in turn birthright citizenship) was largely manufactured, and only possible because of multiple Constitutional violations.

What do you think?

And I guess this gets at a broader question: is it ok to break the Constitution to pass a "good" amendment or law?

(I am going to ask this in r/AskConservatives as well by the way.)