Joey is constitutionally-challenged, believing, like all "good" progressives, that the Constitution is a living document, rather than a legal document.
The only thing that matters to a supporter/defender of the Constitution is what is written in the Constitution, and the manner in which it was constructed during the debates. This is Scalia:
"My brand of legal interpretation—which today is called, in some quarters derisively, originalism—is not too far removed from the principles that Lincoln articulates in these two speeches. It is the view that the Constitution, like other legal documents, must be interpreted fairly according to its text, in light of the history of its adoption, and the tradition of its application. And that while the Constitution may have to be applied to new phenomena, in its application to phenomena extant when it was adopted, it does not change."
[Antonin Scalia, "Scalia Speaks." Crown Forum, 2017]
Keep in mind that Lincoln spoke out of both sides of his mouth. Scalia was referring to what Lincoln said, not what he meant.
So, what does the Constitution say about secession? It says that all states have the right to secede BECAUSE secession clauses of three of the states were accepted, as follows:
Excerpt from Virginia Ratification document:
"WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any capacity, by the President or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: and that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by any authority of the United States."
["Virginia Ratification Convention." Avalon Project, June 26, 1788]
Excerpt from New York Ratification document:
"That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; And that those Clauses in the said Constitution, which declare, that Congress shall not have or exercise certain Powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any Powers not given by the said Constitution; but such Clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified Powers, or as inserted merely for greater Caution."
["New York Ratification Convention." Avalon Project, July 26, 1788]
Excerpt from Rhode Island Ratification document:
"That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness:- That the rights of the States respectively, to nominate and appoint all State Officers, and every other power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States or to the departments of government thereof, remain to the people of the several states, or their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said constitution which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply, that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said constitution, but such clauses are to be construed as exceptions to certain specified powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution."
["Rhode Island Ratification Convention." Avalon Project, May 29, 1790, Chap.3]
Secession is not just a right, it is the Supreme Law.
Regarding your list, since secession is a retained right under the Constitution, any opposition to a peaceful succession is an act of tyranny. The first 5 incidents in your list were not peaceful, nor were they secession, so we can discard those. The same could be said for the 6th, the Hartford Convention incident, sorta. But, as usual, Joey removed all historical context to make it appear to fit his narrative. This is the context:
"To be defied by the cities as well as the states of New England was more than the administration could endure. To assert federal authority in both cases, Monroe ordered the 23d and the 25th Infantry regiments into Connecticut for recruiting over the winter. Both these regiments consisted largely of New Englanders who had fought creditably in the last campaign on the Niagara Peninsula. As he did this, Monroe, on November 26, also withdrew part of Izard's army from Plattsburg back to Greenbush in New York. Greenbush was an established army camp, but its location was conveniently close to the western boundaries of both Connecticut and Massachusetts. If the administration should need to intervene in New England or to dissolve the Hartford Convention, the forces were thus near at hand."
"To the commander of the 25th Infantry regiment, Colonel Thomas Jessup, Monroe gave special instructions. The Secretary feared that while the Hartford Convention was meeting, the British forces might attack New York on two fronts—one at Buffalo and the other at Long Island. Such an attack could also be part of a prearranged campaign with the New England Federalists, whose part in it would be to raise the standard of rebellion against the United States. Jessup was therefore ordered to observe closely both the activities of the convention and the British fleet presumed to be hovering off Long Island Sound. If he suspected the slightest intention to disrupt or to invade the Union, he was to seize the federal armory at Springfield, Massachusetts, and to call on General Brown and Governor Tompkins of New York for assistance. Should it be necessary to use force, Monroe advised Jessup to employ it, if possible, only against the enemy and not against American citizens. He was also to keep in constant touch with the Republican leaders of New England, both to assure them that the administration would not allow treason to prosper and to protect them against attack."
[J. C. A. Stagg, "Mr. Madison's War: politics, diplomacy, and warfare in the early American republic, 1783-1830." Princeton University Press, 1983, pp.477-478]
Obviously, there was a lot going on at that time, and a peaceful secession was not one of them.
Regarding the the 7th incident, which occurred in 1832-1833, Jackson abandoned Jeffersonian principles, as well as the Convention adoption of the aforementioned secessions clauses; so he was therefore clearly wrong. Further, there is no authorized power given to the federal government to "preserve the union," nor is there an authorized power given to the federal government to enforce an unconstitutional law. If the federal government can implement and enforce unconstitutional laws under the guise of "preserving the Union," there is no Union, and there is no Constitution. [Note: bullies and thugs everywhere will disagree with that statement.]
Read the authorized powers for yourself in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution:
Only those laws made pursuant to exercising the authorized powers in the Constitution can be classified as "Laws of the Union;" all others are appropriately classified as usurpations of power, which are, in fact, "Laws of Disunion."
South Carolina's patriotism -- their love of the Constitution rather than the glory and patronage of mere men -- forced a compromise.
Regarding the the 8th incident, Utah was not a state in 1857, and therefore could not secede.
Mr. Kalamata
Except for the fact that those pronouncements had no force of law or any effect.
As James Madison said in replying to Alexander Hamilton when Alexander told him about the conditional ratification that New York was proposing,
“It must be adopted in toto and for ever.” This letter from Madison was read to the ratification convention. So as far as the father of the constitution was concerned that was just fluff.
No, the constitution is clear it is the supreme law of the land, and clearly stars so.
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
And speaking of the constitution, can you show me where it gives the President, or congress, the power to recognize a state is no longer a state? I’d think the founders would have put such a procedure in there for such a momentous act, if they wanted state’s to be able to leave. I can’t seem to find it.
Signing statements carry no weight of law. Everyone got the same deal - ratification or no ratification. Anything extra is feel-good symbolism - not law.