[LS]

That is not a fact. It is a legal/constitutional opinion not shared by Andrew Jackson, James Madison, George Washington, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, or, of course, Lincoln. It depends totally on the interpretation of the constitutional convention as a "compact," which most respected historians specializing in that era---John C. Miller, Gordon Wood, for example---reject. Most of the Founders (though not all---such as George Mason) held a view of society that could be called "organic": once a constitution put a "body" together, no "part" could secede from another. That is why Madison forcefully rejected the Hartford Convention's claims and Jackson rejected SC's claims in the Tariff of Abominations.

So to understand the context of the ratification, you have to analyze what these Founders thought "ratification" to imply---and to all but a few (at times Jefferson and Madison, at times, not)---this meant "organic." The South could no more secede than an arm can secede from a body without the blood loss killing it.

It is a myth of the "neo-confederate" historians that the "compact" theory was the one the Founders subscribed to.

Note, for example, that as far back as the DECLARATION (which is the foundational document for the constitution), even JEFFERSON did not say that the "colonies" were the final authority in seceding from England, but the "people" because the Americans were no longer English, but a different people.

[Aurelius]

"That is not a fact."

I was careless in my usage. Let me restate.

I am very strongly of the opinion that if peaceful unilateral secession from the federation formed is 1789 was not an option then that federation was in total contradiction to the spirit that ostensibly underlay its foundation. Instead while the federation had no person as king, the federal government was in reality a corporate king with claim to divine rights and with subjects - owned by that corporate royalty and from whom unquestioning loyaly was demanded - rather than free citizens. That is how I see it.