I don't think I've ever said it was illegal for the South to leave, just the way they chose to. Secession, as Madison said, requires the approval of those staying as well as those leaving.
But the Constitution says no such thing. It never touches the topic, because that topic falls under the Tenth Amendment, as a right left to the States. :-)
It doesn't say what the process for leaving is. It's left to deduce that method from a clear reading of the Constitution itself. And it's pretty clear that any action involving admitting states, changing them one they've been admitted, and any actions that might affect the other states requires the consent of the states.
Remember, the constitution only applies to states while they are in the Union. Congress and the constitution has no power over anything in any state which has withdrawn its delegated powers.
But that property is still the property of the U.S. and only Congress can dispose of it.
Regarding Fort Sumter, here are a couple interested articles for you to read...
Napolitano's opinion and some Confederate leaders saying Lincoln provoked the war. What is that supposed to prove?
Actually, no (and I can see you didn't read all those nice quotes I gave you) There is nothing to that effect in the constitution or in any law whatsoever, and any rights or powers not delegated to the fed gov belong to the states. Period.
And it's pretty clear that any action involving admitting states, changing them one they've been admitted, and any actions that might affect the other states requires the consent of the states.
Notice how those all apply to states that are in the union or territories looking to join it. Doesn't follow for states looking to leave.
Remember, the constitution only applies to states that are in the union.
that property is still the property of the U.S" That was property that was delegated the fed gov. It belonged to the States before it ever belonged to the fed gov and when withdrawing the rest of their delegated powers they withdrew the fed gov's right to use those properties as well. Although by right these "federal" properties reverted back to the states when they were no long under the Federal government, the South still offered to pay for the forts, but Lincoln refused.
Napolitano's opinion and some Confederate leaders saying Lincoln provoked the war. What is that supposed to prove?
I thought you might find Napolitano interesting since he is a legal analyst. As to the opinions of Jefferson Davis and his VP Stevens, I posted it because it shows how they saw the situation. Here they had a hostile fort guarding their harbor. They had asked the garrison to leave numerous times and been refused. Now, after Lincoln had hinted that he would withdraw the garrison, Lincoln goes on to sent ships loaded with supplies, as well as soldiers and arms. Could they trust Lincoln? They knew he was a very wily politician, and where afraid of the harbor being exposed to the combined fire of a hostile fort and fleet combined. They were not acting on the offensive. They were acting on the defensive by making a preemptive strike because they felt threatened. Lincoln was very happy, as this was the result he had anticipated and hoped for when he sent out the fleet:
Lincoln in a letter to Gustavus Fox in May 1861. Fox was the commander of the expedition Abe sent to reinforce Ft. Sumter:
"You (FOX) and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result (WAR).”
If the South had really wanted to be aggressive and start a war, they would have attacked much sooner, rather than waiting until the situation forced them to act. And they wouldn't have sent peace delegations to Washington in early 1861 (Lincoln refused to listen to these). Also, they would have declared war first (or at least right after Lincoln did). Rather they waited over two weeks after Lincoln declared war before they issued a declaration. In their declaration of war, they wrote that
"earnest efforts made by this government to establish friendly relations between the government of the United States and the Confederate States and to settle all questions of disagreement between the two governments upon principles of right, justice, equity and good faith, have proved unavailing, by reason of the refusal of the government of the United States to hold any intercourse with the Commissioners appointed by the government for the purposes aforesaid or to listen to any proposal they had to make for the peaceful solution of all causes of difficulties between the two governments...the President of the United States of America has issued his Proclamation, making the requisition upon the states of the American Union for seventy-five thousand men, for the purpose as therein indicated of capturing forts, and other strongholds of the jurisdiction of, and belonging to the Confederate States of America, and has detailed Naval armaments upon the coast of the Confederate States of America, and raised, organized and equipped a large military force to execute the purpose aforesaid, and has issued his other Proclamations announcing his purpose to set foot a blockage of the ports of the Confederate States"
They declared that these were "acts of hostilities and wanton aggression, which are plainly intended to oppress and finally, subjugate the people of the Confederate States."