The "South" did not seceede. Each individual and soverign State which later comprised The Confederate States of America, individually, at the discretion of its duly elected legislature, empowered by its citizens, seceeded.
My ancestors took no oath to the United States as a NATION until after the War Between the States.
They got the land grant in 1641. In fact, (much later) Union troops stole and burned the businesses and property of one of my ancestors in Missouri who would, in all honesty (and before God), not take such an oath during the war.
You state:
The State Constitutions are mandated to establish Republican forms of government, and to protect their peoples rights
No Federal anything mandated State Constitutions. Most States operated under Charter until the Revolution. (Maryland's Charter was dated 1632)
In 1776, eight states (Delaware, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia) wrote constitutions. These were followed by New York, and Georgia in 1777, and Massachusetts in 1780.
All before the writing of the Federal Constitution.
Connecticut and Rhode Island elected to continuing operating under their charters and (until 1818 in the case of Connecticut and 1843 in the case of Rhode Island). The fourteenth state, Vermont, actually wrote its first constitution in 1777.
All States which did not operate under their charters had Constitutions PRIOR to the writing of the Constitution of these United States. They were, Soverign Nations, each unto themselves.
Note that I have not included "the people" in this discussion because it should be understood that all power, whether it be at the State level or (eventually) Federal, is derived from the people by their consent.
I have nothing backwards, simply because the people were not being discussed, only the relationship between the States and the Federal Government.
Had the States not been individual nations, they would have had no need (nor ability!) to ratify the Federal Constitution and become one of the 'united states'.
Go here, Avalon Project and read the Maryland Constitution. You will see many of the concepts later incorporated in the Constitution of the United States.
The site is great for reading myriad other documents of the time as well.
Many colonies even coined their own money. (While English money was the norm, specie of almost any nation was used, especially the Spanish Milled Dollar--AKA cobb, or piece of eight).
No one then disputed the right of the people of these States to make or dissolve alliances, else they would not have been able to eventually ratify the Constitution of the United States.
With ratification, certain limitations were imposed, but nowhere in the US Constitution did it limit the right of each State to seceede.
It took nearly 50 years for the concepts to be morphed out of shape by the assembled greed of the northern States, and I presume you are young enough to watch the European Union for that long. You will see similar developments there.
As for unenumerated rights, certainly the right of secession is one of these, to wit:
"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
This unalienable and unenumerated right is never sacrificed on the altar of nationhood, no matter what the nation.
This most fundamental right, that of the governed to withhold or withdraw their consent, and thus, their power, is the basis by which the Colonies broke away from Europe, and remains the right of each citizen, and whatever governmental entities those assembled citizens assign that power thereto.
And I ask, would you support a 'Union of Socialist States' takeover on our West Coast? -- I suspect you would dispute it, as I would.
I would dispute the formation of such an entity, and frequently do (it often seems as if there is such an entity now, and in the northeast as well). But not as a question of rights, only one of security to my way of life.
Unfortunately, the 'consent of the governed' gives people who do not understand or desire their rights the right to piss them away as well.
The "South" did not seceede. Each individual and soverign State which later comprised The Confederate States of America, individually, at the discretion of its duly elected legislature, empowered by its citizens, seceeded.
Many individuals in those States did not secede. Their rights were violated by an unconstitutional secession.
My ancestors took no oath to the United States as a NATION until after the War Between the States.
ALL State officials are sworn to support our Constitution, ALL people in the USA must obey the Law of the Land. Sworn or not, your ancestors born here after ratification were Citizens of the USA. [or counted as 3/5's of one]
They got the land grant in 1641. In fact, (much later) Union troops stole and burned the businesses and property of one of my ancestors in Missouri who would, in all honesty (and before God), not take such an oath during the war.
You state:
The State Constitutions are mandated to establish Republican forms of government, and to protect their peoples rights.
No Federal anything mandated State Constitutions.
Read Art IV Sec 4 of our US Constitution, Joe. No new States were admitted without compliance with the Law of the Land.
Most States operated under Charter until the Revolution. (Maryland's Charter was dated 1632) In 1776, eight states (Delaware, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia) wrote constitutions. These were followed by New York, and Georgia in 1777, and Massachusetts in 1780. All before the writing of the Federal Constitution.
But once they ratified the US Constitution, it became the supreme Law of the Land.
Connecticut and Rhode Island elected to continuing operating under their charters and (until 1818 in the case of Connecticut and 1843 in the case of Rhode Island). The fourteenth state, Vermont, actually wrote its first constitution in 1777. All States which did not operate under their charters had Constitutions PRIOR to the writing of the Constitution of these United States. They were, Soverign Nations, each unto themselves.
Yet ALL their officials swore oaths to support the US Constitution as the supreme law. Thus they were 'nations' no more, They were States in a Union.
Note that I have not included "the people" in this discussion because it should be understood that all power, whether it be at the State level or (eventually) Federal, is derived from the people by their consent. I have nothing backwards, simply because the people were not being discussed, only the relationship between the States and the Federal Government. Had the States not been individual nations, they would have had no need (nor ability!) to ratify the Federal Constitution and become one of the 'united states'. Go here, Avalon Project and read the Maryland Constitution. You will see many of the concepts later incorporated in the Constitution of the United States. The site is great for reading myriad other documents of the time as well. Many colonies even coined their own money. (While English money was the norm, specie of almost any nation was used, especially the Spanish Milled Dollar--AKA cobb, or piece of eight). No one then disputed the right of the people of these States to make or dissolve alliances, else they would not have been able to eventually ratify the Constitution of the United States.
With ratification, certain limitations were imposed, but nowhere in the US Constitution did it limit the right of each State to seceede.
'Nowhere' did our Constitution provide for States to withdraw from the Union. States have the power to amend the Constitution, but not to abandon its principles.
It took nearly 50 years for the concepts to be morphed out of shape by the assembled greed of the northern States, and I presume you are young enough to watch the European Union for that long. You will see similar developments there. As for unenumerated rights, certainly the right of secession is one of these, to wit:
"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
The souths 'causes' were heard, and found specious. They had no just cause.
This unalienable and unenumerated right is never sacrificed on the altar of nationhood, no matter what the nation. This most fundamental right, that of the governed to withhold or withdraw their consent, and thus, their power, is the basis by which the Colonies broke away from Europe, and remains the right of each citizen, and whatever governmental entities those assembled citizens assign that power thereto.
Yep, thats why I asked:
-- Would you support a 'Union of Socialist States' takeover on our West Coast? -- I suspect you would dispute it, as I would.
I would dispute the formation of such an entity, and frequently do (it often seems as if there is such an entity now, and in the northeast as well).
But not as a question of rights,
BIG 'but', Joe. You really would grant that socialists have a 'right' to take over a state, abolish its constitution, and institute Communism? Wow.
, -- only one of security to my way of life.
Sad comment, -- in effect, you would sacrifice others liberty if it didn't affect your security.
Unfortunately, the 'consent of the governed' gives people who do not understand or desire their rights the right to piss them away as well.
There are millions of patriots in California who would fight to the death against a socialist majorities takeover of the State, and succession.
You've said you would only support them if it threatened your security. -- Too bad they can't count on your principles for support Joe.