It appears that it is very important to you that I weigh in on whether they think they had a right to secede. Let’s delve into the Constitution. Article III empowers to Courts to review efforts for their Constitutionality. This was detailed in Marbury vs. Madison in 1803.
Since there was obviously a difference of opinion as to whether States could secede, the US Supreme Court should be the one that determined if these actions were constitutional. I cannot remember a case by the Supreme Court declaring secession legal. If you can cite one, I am all ears
Failing the legal route, the secessionist states went the extralegal (or illegal) route. They declared independence, and then at least 5 of the secessionist states, in their various Articles of Secession, explained that they were forced to do this because the rest of the country wouldn’t return their slaves when they ran away, wouldn’t allow them to make slavery legal in the new Territories, and said mean things about them in the press. Also, at some time in the future those mean states MIGHT do something about slavery in the states where it was currently legal.
So, it appears that they did not have the right to secede, based on the reading of the US Constitution. Since they did not have the legal right, they went the military route, starting by an unprovoked attack on Fort Sumter. The rest is history. Since the South didn’t win the war, there is no CSA Constitution declaring their acts were legal to fall back on.
So, to summarize – Right to Secede: no. Reason for Secession: Defense of Slavery.
Don't twist the question. I want you to justify any reasoning for why you think they didn't. I've put forth the proof that they did. I've made my salient argument.
The ball is now in your court to top my legal argument.
Why did they not have the same right to leave as the colonies from Great Britain? It should have been even easier because the Precedent was established by our own government.
So, it appears that they did not have the right to secede, based on the reading of the US Constitution.
The Declaration is legally superior to the Constitution. The Declaration created the nation, and invokes the power of God for it's authority.
The Constitution, in contrast, is the second of two man-made documents outlining the "rules" of how such a government should operate, and is severely inferior to the Declaration in terms of moral and legal authority.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The Declaration creates governments. The Constitution merely operates them.
And as has been pointed out to you ad infinitum, The answer to that question makes the reasons irrelevant. Given your answer, who cares about their reasons? They don't have the right to leave anyways!
They are effectively bound by chains, like a slave.