Yes, but there you are assuming, and nowhere is it stated in the Construction. And nowhere did the states surrender the right of secession or allow it to be limited in any way.
You still seem confused about the way the states joined. The states that joined later may have needed approval but then again the Constitution says that it is the job of the federal government to make sure all the states have a republican form of government. If the original constitution of Kansas wasn't really along the lines of a proper republic, they may have gotten refused for a time. That does not negate the fact that ALL the states that entered the Union did so of their own free will and not by force, and thus could leave by their own free will. If you were to join a club, and even if they had to review your credentials and approve you before you became a member, that would not take away your right to leave the club later if you chose.
I think Jefferson Davis summed up the situation very well in his inaugural address:
"Our present position has been achieved in a manner unprecedented in the history of nations. It illustrates the American idea that government rests upon the consent of the governed, and that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish a government whenever it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established. The declared purposes of the compact of Union from which we have withdrawn were to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, to provide for the common defence, to promote the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity; and when in the judgment of the sovereign States now comprising this Confederacy it had been perverted from the purposes for which it was ordained, and had ceased to answer the ends for which it was established, an appeal to the ballot box declared that so far as they were concerned the government created by that compact should cease to exist. In this they merely asserted a right which the Declaration of Independence of 1776 defined to be inalienable. Of the time and occasion for its exercise, they, as sovereign, were the final judges each for itself. The impartial and enlightened verdict of mankind will vindicate the rectitude of our conduct, and He who knows the hearts of men will judge the sincerity with which we have labored to preserve the government of our fathers, in its spirit and in those rights inherent in it, which were solemnly proclaimed at the birth of the States, and which have been affirmed and reaffirmed in the Bills of Rights of the several States. When they entered into the Union of 1789, it was with the undeniable recognition of the power of the people to resume the authority delegated for the purposes of that government whenever, in their opinion, its functions were perverted and its ends defeated. By virtue of this authority, the time and occasion requiring them to exercise it having arrived, the sovereign States here represented have seceded from that Union, and it is a gross abuse of language to denominate the act rebellion or revolution. They have formed a new alliance, but in each State its government has remained as before."
From what part of the Constitution do you draw this opinion? When the property didn't belong to the state in the first place?
(regarding govn't property in southern states) From the fact that all power that the government has was delegated to the government by its creators, the states. Certain properties were delegated by the states to the fed gov for the fulfillment of its delegated duties (such as tax collection houses and military forts for the protection of the states). However, when the states reassumed their delegated powers, the federal government now had no right to maintain tax houses and forts and such in those states, as the power and right to do so had been withdrawn.
An attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumters with provisions only
Except they weren't. They were also bringing more troops and ammunition.
Here are the newspaper articles I promised to post (They are almost all Northern btw). I also included a few sources besides newspaper articles.
"The South has furnished near three-fourths of the entire exports of the country. Last year she furnished seventy-two percent of the whole...we have a tariff that protects our manufacturers from thirty to fifty percent, and enables us to consume large quantities of Southern cotton, and to compete in our whole home market with the skilled labor of Europe . This operates to compel the South to pay an indirect bounty to our skilled labor, of millions annually."
Daily Chicago Times, December 10, 1860
"...the Union must obtain full victory as essential to preserve the economy of the country. Concessions to the South would lead to a new nation...which would destroy the U.S. Economy."
- Pamphlet No 14. "The Preservation of the Union A National Economic Necessity," The Loyal Publication Society, printed in New York , May 1863, by Wm. C. Bryant & Co. Printers
"They (the South) know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interest.... These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the Union . They (the North) are enraged at the prospect of being despoiled of the rich feast upon which they have so long fed and fattened, and which they were just getting ready to enjoy with still greater gout and gusto. They are as mad as hornets because the prize slips them just as they are ready to grasp it."
New Orleans Daily Crescent, January 21, 1861
Manchester, New Hampshire Union Democrat: "The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it. Literally nothing. The transportation of cottonand its fabrics employs more ships than all other trade. It is very clear that the South gains by this process, and we lose. No - We MUST NOT 'let the South go.'"
New York Evening Post article titled "What Shall Be Done For A Revenue?":
That either revenue from dutues must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the ports must be closed to importations from abroad....If neither of these things is done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which suppoly our treasure will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is rip....Allow railroad iron to be entered at Savannah with the low duty of ten per cent, wchih is all that the Southern Confederacy think of laying on imported goods, and not an ounce more would be imported at New York; the railways would be supplied from southern ports."
In an article titled "What is the Issue?" appearing on page 290 in the May 11,1861 issue of Harper's Weekly we find
"A RECENT number of Once a Week has a summary of foreign news, and it remarks: "There is a revolution in America, involving impracticable tariffs and a menace of a dearth of cotton." The article goes on to state "Impracticable tariffs have as much to do with the struggle as they have with Garibaldi"s war in Italy."
W.C. Fowler (Author of The Sectional Controversy (published 1864), recounted an incident when some years previously, he met a friend from his college days who was at that time a prominent Northern member of Congress. The Congressman was leaving a heated meeting regarding abolition and other sectional issues. Fowler asked the Congressman what was the real reason that Northerners were encouraging abolitionist petitions. The Congressman replied: "The real reason is that the South will not let us have a tariff, and we touch them were they will feel it."
President James Buchanan's message to Congress declared,
"The South had not had her share of money from the treasury, and unjust discrimination had been made against her...."
In 1828, Senator Thomas H. Benton declared:
"Before the revolution [the South] was the seat of wealth, as well as hospitality....Wealth has fled from the South, and settled in regions north of the Potomac: and this in the face of the fact, that the South, in four staples alone, has exported produce, since the Revolution, to the value of eight hundred millions of dollars and the North had exported comparatively nothing. Such an export would indicate unparalleled wealth, but what is the fact?...Under Federal legislation, the exports of the South have been the basis of the Federal revenue....Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia, may be said to defray three-fourths, of the annual expense of supporting the Federal government; and of this great sum, annually furnished by them, nothing or next to nothing is returned to them, in the shape of government expenditures. That expenditure flows in an opposite direction - it flows northwardly, in one uniform, uninterrupted, and perennial stream. This is the reason why wealth disappears from the South and rises up in the North. Federal legislation does all this."
The Ten Causes Of The War Between The States by James W. King and LtCol Thomas M. Nelson
"Prior to the war about 75% of the money to operate the Federal Government was derived from the Southern States via an unfair sectional tariff on imported goods and 50% of the total 75% was from just 4 Southern states--Virginia-North Carolina--South Carolina and Georgia. Only 10%--20% of this tax money was being returned to the South. The Southern states were being treated as an agricultural colony of the North and bled dry. John Randolph of Virginia's remarks in opposition to the tariff of 1820 demonstrates that fact. The North claimed that they fought the war to preserve the Union but the New England Industrialists who were in control of the North were actually supporting preservation of the Union to maintain and increase revenue from the tariff. The industrialists wanted the South to pay for the industrialization of America at no expense to themselves. Revenue bills introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives prior to the War Between the States were biased, unfair and inflammatory to the South. Abraham Lincoln had promised the Northern industrialists that he would increase the tariff rate if he was elected president of the United States. Lincoln increased the rate to a level that exceeded even the "Tariff of Abominations" 40% rate that had so infuriated the South during the 1828-1832 era (between 50 and 51% on iron goods). The election of a president that was Anti-Southern on all issues and politically associated with the New England industrialists, fanatics, and zealots brought about the Southern secession movement."
The Ten Causes Of The War Between The States by James W. King and LtCol Thomas M. Nelson
I'm assuming that permissions is needed, based on my reading of the Constitution. And you're assuming permission isn't needed, based on your reading of the Constitution. The men at the Constitution themselves don't seem to have weighed in on the subject much, except James Madison who wrote several times against the idea of states being able to just walk out.
If the original constitution of Kansas wasn't really along the lines of a proper republic, they may have gotten refused for a time.
Actually the problem was free state/slave state. The first couple allowed slavery.
That does not negate the fact that ALL the states that entered the Union did so of their own free will and not by force, and thus could leave by their own free will.
One could just as easily make the case, and I have, that states were allowed to join the Union with the consent of the other states and thus could only leave with the consent of the other states. Free will is fine. But all the free will in the territory will not get them added as a state unless the other states OK it.
If you were to join a club, and even if they had to review your credentials and approve you before you became a member, that would not take away your right to leave the club later if you chose.
Unless the rules said leaving required consultations and approval of the other members.
From the fact that all power that the government has was delegated to the government by its creators, the states. Certain properties were delegated by the states to the fed gov for the fulfillment of its delegated duties (such as tax collection houses and military forts for the protection of the states). However, when the states reassumed their delegated powers, the federal government now had no right to maintain tax houses and forts and such in those states, as the power and right to do so had been withdrawn.
Article I, Section 8 makes it clear that Congress exercises sole authority over the property of the other states. There is nothing in there that says when states leave they can take what they want.
Except they weren't. They were also bringing more troops and ammunition.
Which Lincoln also mentioned in his letter and also made it clear that they would remain on the ship unless the resupply was opposed. Nothing was hidden from Pickens.