The secession of a state from the Union depends on the will of the people of such state. The people alone as we have already seen, hold the power to alter their constitution. The Constitution of the United States is to a certain extent, incorporated into the constitutions or the several states by the act of the people. The state legislatures have only to perform certain organical operations in respect to it. To withdraw from the Union comes not within the general scope of their [Gianni note: "their" is the state legislature] delegated authority. There must be an express provision to that effect inserted in the state constitutions. This is not at present the case with any of them, and it would perhaps be impolitic to confide it to them. A matter so momentous, ought not to be entrusted to those who would have it in their power to exercise it lightly and precipitately upon sudden dissatisfaction, or causeless jealousy, perhaps against the interests and the wishes of a majority of their constituents.
So Rawle seems to be saying that none of the states in 1829 had the authority to secede as part of their Constitutions. So what changed?
Rawle is saying that none of the legislatures were empowered to seceed by thier respective state constitutions, but makes it clear that the people of that state could delegate such power, were it deemed wise.
And yet in states like South Carolina and North Carolina and, supposedly, Missouri it was the state legislatures that took them out of the Union, in two cases done in opposition to popular referendum against secession. Are you saying that all those actions were illegal? If not, then what changed between 1829 and 1860 that made such actions legal?
Thank you for your input, it is appreciated. :-)