You claimed several of the seceding states cited the 10th Amendment as part of their justification for secession. I pointed out that was not the case. Only South Carolina cited the 10th as one of the reasons for it actions.
That has nothing to do with a constitutional powers, merely that the 10th was not the crux of the arguments that the seceding states chose expound on in their defense of secession.
It might be my comment in Post 109 (rather than a post by Kalamata) that you are referring to: "...the 10th Amendment was cited by the seceeding States in support of their formal severance of ties." The phrase 'formal severance of ties' was intended as a reference to secession as the mechanism (versus any less formal or lawful method), and your assumption that I was referring specifically to the written ordinances of secession is understandable, and due to my choice of words.
However, I was simply referring to the fact that several of the seceding States mentioned the 10th Amendment in support of the right of State secession, whether in an ordinance of secession or elsewhere. The Constitution of 1860 nowhere prohibited such a formal severance of ties by a member State, and it was therefore considered by some advocates to be among the rights reserved to the States and their people. I've provided a few specific citations that establish that point...
You have a reading comprehension problem.
For the rest of you, the right to secede is a retained right, and exercising it expresses that right, whether it is explicitly mentioned or not.
Few knowledgeable individuals questioned the right of any state to secede until King Lincoln showed up. Check out the Hartford Convention of the mid-1810's. A good book on that crisis is by James Banner, which contains this:
"While frowning upon the extreme of secession, however, the majority of Massachusetts Federalists did not give up the search for a defense of their minority interests. This they found in the more moderate course of state interposition. The Federalist theory of interposition, so widely held after 1808, was rooted in the premise that the nation was a collection of 'several independent confederated republics,' a 'league' of equal and sovereign states which had surrendered only a portion of their authority to the central government under the Constitution. In constitutional arguments sharply reminiscent of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions which they had only a few years earlier rejected, Federalists declared that the Constitution was variously a 'treaty,' 'contract,' or 'association.' Each state was a free republic 'united by a solemn compact under a federal government of limited powers.' These sovereign republics, and not the people, had been represented at Philadelphia, and the nation's sovereignty derived directly from the sovereignty of the states." [James M. Banner, "To the Hartford Convention: the Federalists and the origins of party politics in Massachusetts, 1789-1815." Alfred A. Knopf, 1970, p.118]
Note carefully the last section beginning with the phrase, "Each state was a free republic...". We sometimes forget that the constitution guaranteed each state a republican form of government.
"Article IV, Section 4 - The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;" [Law, "Constitution of the United States and Amendments." 1787]
King Lincoln must have also forgot that part.
Mr. Kalamata