[#3Fan]

You are not arguing, you are restating. Your opinion is not validation of your assertion and your opinions are irrelevant. You said: "I didn't say it was subject to Congressional approval. I said that they have to follow Article IV in doing this act." Congress did not agree with you On December 12, 1860, eight days before South Carolina, the first state to secede did so, the United States House of Representatives proposed the following Constitutional Amendment: ”Whenever a convention of delegates, chosen in any State by the people thereof, under the recommendation of its legislature, shall rescind and annul its ratification of this Constitution, the President shall nominate and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint commissioners, not exceeding three, to confer with the duly appointed agents of such State, and agree upon the disposition of the public property and territory belonging to the United States lying within such State, and upon the proportion of the public debt to be assumed and paid by such State; and if the President shall approve the settlement agreed upon by the commissioners, he shall thereupon transmit the same to the Senate; and upon the ratification thereof by two-thirds of the senators present, he shall forthwith issue his proclamation declaring the assent of the United States to the withdrawal of such State from the Union.”. They knew (and what you argue against) that secession was not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, nor regulated by Congressional action, so they attempted to pass an amendment requiring the approval you suggest. But it never became law. Therefore, there was nothing prohibiting secession, or controlling secession. One hundred forty four years ago, they knew your assertion was wrong.

No amendment was necessary and I never said secession was prohibited. I said Congress gets to guide how it's proven.