Not according to the Constitution, and the Constitutional Convention.
*****************
>>OIFVeteran wrote: "In fact previous President’s had done the same thing against other insurrection against the government. Starting with President Washington who led troops to put down the whiskey rebellion."
The Whiskey Rebellion was a rebellion, not secession.
*****************
>>OIFVeteran wrote: "Even President Buchanan, as spineless as he was, said the states had no right to secede, though he also claimed that the federal government had no right to force the state to stay in the Union. Though he did say that once the pretend confederacy fired on Fort Sumter that the federal government then had the right to use force to destroy the rebellion."
It doesn't matter what politicians say. The Constitution is the legal document that guides our nation. Usurpation of that legal document is tyranny, period.
*****************
>>OIFVeteran wrote: "But I think the best view on secession was expressed by President Andrew Jackson in his proclamation to the people of South Carolina on December 10, 1832, when they threatened to secede during the nullification crisis..."
During the crisis, Clay had presented a more logical system of judicial review, that wouldn't risk our Free Republic to the ideologies of five politically-appointed Men in Black:
"One writer has commented: Calhoun ''unconsciously started with the conclusion he wanted and reasoned back to the premises... he leads you willy-nilly to his conclusions" and "the sure grip of Calhoun's logic will end by making one a nullifier or a lunatic." The Constitution, Calhoun restated, was a compact between sovereign states. Each state could determine when it was violated and interpose to halt the operation of the unconstitutional law, which then became suspended. Following this, the general government could appeal to the Constitution makers, the states, and the will of three-fourths would decide the issue. Here was a kind of judicial review by the states, a process whereby 1/4 of the states plus one could effectively check the will of 3/4 of the states." [David Lindsey, "Andrew Jackson & John C. Calhoun." Barron's Educational Series, Inc., 1973, p.153]
Jackson did adopt a conciliatory tone:
"During the fall of 1832, Jackson was still willing to give conciliation a try, believing that the carrot rather than the stick might work better in bringing balky Carolina to pull in harness. When Congress gathered in early December (Calhoun absent from the Vice President's chair for the first time in eight years), Jackson in his annual message made a brief, calm reference to the nullification drive suggesting that the laws at present were adequate to meet the problem. As to the supposed source of difficulty, the tariff, he asserted that 'if upon investigation it shall be found... that the legislative protection is greater than indispensably requisite tor these objects [national security and defense], I recommend that it be gradually diminished.'The message,' thought John Quincy Adams, 'is a complete surrender to the nullifiers.'" [David Lindsey, "Andrew Jackson & John C. Calhoun." Barron's Educational Series, Inc., 1973, pp.158-159]
Howeever, Jackson later became incensed when South Carolina refused conciliation and rejected a tariff compromise. Calhoun's diplomacy, with the reluctant help of Clay, eventually prevailed.
Jackson's logic was flawed, similar to Lincoln's, in that he considered the Union superior to a Free Republic. But, unlike Lincoln, Jackson was a statesman, not a tyrant, and he accepted a subsequent tariff compromise that ended the crisis. Unfortunately for liberty, part of the compromise included a Soviet-style "Force Bill" which "gave" the President the unconstitutional power to use military force to suppress resistance to laws, which Lincoln later adopted to destroy our republic."
Mr. Kalamata
Presidents set precedents, Jackson and Buchanan set the precedent that secession was illegal. They based this on the Federalist view of the Constitution. That the constitution was adopted by all the people, not a subset of people in a state. Where did this idea come from? It came from the Constitution where it states “We the people...”. It came from the writings of the founders at the constitutional convention. This view was also upheld by the U.S. Supreme court as early as 1821 in the Cohens vs Virginia decision;
“The people made the constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will. But this supreme and irresistible power to make or to unmake, resides only in the whole body of the people; not in any sub-division of them. The attempt of any of the parts to exercise it is usurpation, and ought to be repelled by those to whom the people have delegated their power of repelling it.” [19 U.S. 264] 1821