[BroJoeK]

Organic Panic: "Lincoln killed 700,000 Americans to show us secession is illegal."

DiogenesLamp: "That it was contrary to his will.
He did not show us it was illegal.
All the evidence shows that it is not."

Oh, for crying out loud!

First of all, Lincoln didn't "kill 700,000 Americans", if anybody, Jefferson Davis did -- Davis started it and could have ended it at any time on terms much better than the "unconditional surrender" Davis insisted on.
To claim that "Lincoln killed 700,000" is like saying President Roosevelt "killed" all 70 million who died in WWII.
It's total rubbish.

Second, as for the legality of secession, the US Constitution is totally copesetic with "secession", or any other such realignments, provided, provided, provided they are done by mutual consent.
And throughout US history there've been several such changes, as pointed out by SeeSharp (post #38):

"Maine seceded from Massachusetts, Tennessee seceded from North Carolina, Kentucky seceded from Virginia, Vermont seceded from both New York and New Hampshire."

To which Lurking Libertarian added (post #129):

"Each time, with the consent of all states involved and the consent of Congress."

I could add to that Pennsylvania's Erie Triangle (1792), the proposed states of Franklin & Jefferson, which did not happen, but which proposals were entirely constitutional.
Here is a whole listing of historical proposed state partitions.

In post #141 SeeSharp responded to Lurking Libertarian(#141):

"Not True.
Each of the seceding entities were admitted with the consent of Congress, but only Virginia consented to the secession.
And Congress didn't even exist at the time Vermont carved itself out.
They threatened to join Canada if they weren't recognized as an independent colony by the Continental Congress, which agreed over the objections of New York and New Hampshire."

Sorry, but most of that is pure nonsense.
The real fact is that in all those cases all the parties did eventually agree -- mutual consent.
That is what the US Constitution contemplates and has no problems with, so long as all parties agree.

But that is not what happened in 1806 when former VP Aaron Burr threatened to secede with Louisiana, or in 1814 when the Hartford Convention threatened New England secession, or in 1860 when the cotton South began to declare secession over the election of Lincoln's Black Republicans.
All those involved secession without mutual consent, and the Federal government acted in each case prevent or stop it.

Our Founders were clear and consistent: with mutual consent you can do nearly anything, but without mutual consent, you can't secede or make any other changes to boundaries, much less rebel, insurrect or commit domestic violence & treason against the United States.

[SeeSharp]

Go ahead and cry out loud then. Lincoln started the war by invading the South. He could have ended it at any time by simply bringing his army home. The South didn't want war. The Lincoln administration did. So yes, Lincoln killed all those people. His was a war of conquest, unpopular at home. Davis's war was a war of survival, intensely popular at home.

The constitution says absolutely nothing about secession, either with or without consent. And inanimate object do not "contemplate". Perhaps you can show us where the framers intended the union to be a one-way trap. Perhaps you can show us where any of them argued that no state can ever leave the union. This notion that all the states have to agree when a state secedes is just a made up rationalization for a past crime. Several states explicitly stated that they reserved the right to secede when they joined. Every new state, even those admitted after the first thirteen, did so with the consent of their population. The seceding states did so with the consent of their populations. They actually held elections to special conventions to decide the issue. You can't claim to believe in self government and government by popular consent on the one hand and oppose secession on the other.

As for North Carolina, Massachusetts, New York, and New Hampshire agreeing to the loss of their territory, they were each faced with a fait accompli and couldn't do anything about it. How Lincolnesque of you to call that consent.