You are aptly named. The legality or illegality of secession has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of Wlat's false statement regarding the unity of the framer's understanding, which you appear to be supporting. I was not arguing for the legality of secession. I was only quoting from the ratification declarations to disprove Wlat's ludicrous statement that "There were no illusions in 1788-90 as to the permanence of Union under law", a false statement disproven by the record, just I have shown. They created the Union with the understanding that a State could withdraw from it and reassume those powers. They said so in the very documents that created the union. Once again, some very obviously believed that it was NOT "permanent", and even said so in the documents that created the union. Wlat's statement and position is therefore completely false, as usual.
When New York agreed to ratify the Constitution it specifically stated in it's declaration "That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness."
Virginia's declaration included these words: "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"
A State's right to reassume the powers it ceded to the Union were very clearly stated when the union was created. Therefore his statement that "There were no illusions in 1788-90 as to the permanence of Union under law" is completely and totally false. You are wrong to support Wlat's obviously false statement.
BTW, secession was never ruled to be illegal before or during the war. Also, BTW, any decision declaring it illegal would be the same as declaring the original agreement void as fraudulent since some states joined with the purposely stated understanding they could withdraw and reassume those powers. Either secession was legal, or there was no union.
Nonsense. Nowhere in the Constitution is that right outlined. Some of the states may have assumed that they had that right because of their ratification documents but they were wrong.
BTW, secession was never ruled to be illegal before or during the war. Also, BTW, any decision declaring it illegal would be the same as declaring the original agreement void as fraudulent since some states joined with the purposely stated understanding they could withdraw and reassume those powers. Either secession was legal, or there was no union.
Yes and no. In his decision in Texas v. White the Chief Justice indicates that secession is permitted when he writes "When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States." So then we need to examine the method that the southern states chose for their acts of secession. By unilaterally declaring that they were no longer in the Union they violated the Constitutional powers granted to Congress to determine the status of states and the constitutional restrictions against actions where the interests of the other states may be impacted unless they have the consent of Congress. So is secession possible? More than likely it is. Were the unilateral acts of secession on the part of the southern states legal? They most certainly were not and the Supreme Court ruled on that in 1868.