It's not "propaganda" if it was the central theme of the declarations of secession, which it was.
You must remember that the Constitution is an agreement between sovereign entities. It was meant to be mutually beneficial.
Unfortunately, and I completely agree that states should be allowed to secede for constitutional reasons, the wording in the Preamble to the Constitution and the wording of the Preamble to the Articles of Confederation make that a tricky argument.
The Articles formed as a "perpetual union" and the Constitution spoke of a "better and more perfect union." From a constitutional viewpoint, it seems that it is necessary to make an argument that temporary is "better and more perfect" than perpetual, this is something that none of the southern states addressed.
I believe that there are certainly arguments that can be made and they very well may need to be made in the future, but until they are made I think the validity of secession is problematic.
Do you really think the Constitution would have been ratified by the 13 states if it had contained an article forbidding secession? Conversely, what impact on ratification would there have been if it contained an article allowing unilateral secession? My answer to the second question would be this; the USC would have been ratified even with a unilateral secession article.
The Articles formed as a "perpetual union" and the Constitution spoke of a "better and more perfect union." From a constitutional viewpoint, it seems that it is necessary to make an argument that temporary is "better and more perfect" than perpetual, this is something that none of the southern states addressed.
I believe that there are certainly arguments that can be made and they very well may need to be made in the future, but until they are made I think the validity of secession is problematic.
The only "problematic" argument would rest with whomever was putting forth the Federal case.
What we have is our several State ratification documents calling for their State to reassume it's delegated authority; if for no other reason, than for their States "happiness".
Then of course, I could tear apart that whole "perpetual union" with the Federalist papers. "The first question is answered at once by recurring to the absolute necessity of the case; to the great principle of self-preservation; to the transcendent law of nature and of nature's God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed."
The Southern States did address the issue of secession. It was the Northern States that attempted to make it illegal after the fact. History is a funny thing because nothing is as it seems.
Here is Texas Senator Louis Wigfall talking about Northern legal maneuvers on secession:
I desire to pour oil on the waters, to produce harmony, piece and quite here.It is early in the morning, and I hope I shall not say anything that may be construed as offensive. I rise merely that we have an understanding of the question. It is not slavery in the territories, it is not expansion, which is the difficulty. If the resolution which the Senator from Wisconsin introduced here, denying the right of secession, had been adopted by two thirds of each branch of the department of the Government, and had it been ratified by three fourths of the States, I have no hesitation in saying that, so far as the State in which I live and to which I owe my allegiance is concerned, if she had no other cause for a disruption of the Union taking place, she would undoubtedly have gone out.
Here is one vote that was voted down - 28 nays to 18 yeas:
“Under this Constitution, as originally adopted and as it now exists, no State has power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States; and this Constitution, and all laws passed in pursuance of its delegated powers, are the supreme law of the land, anything contained in any constitution, ordinance, or act of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
When you dig into the State ratification documents, this is were the meat is. During Virginia's ratification, Mr. Madison said the following:
That resolution declares that the powers granted by the proposed Constitution are the gift of the people, and may be resumed by them when perverted to their oppression, and every power not granted thereby remains with the people, and at their will. It adds, likewise, that no right, of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the general government, or any of its officers, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for these purposes. There cannot be a more positive and unequivocal declaration of the principle of the adoption — that every thing not granted is reserved. This is obviously and self-evidently the case, without the declaration.
George Tucker’s 1803 edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries, which he annotated to American law, was widely used for the teaching of law in the United States for years. Here are some of his thoughts:
But the seceding states were certainly justified upon that principle; and from the duty which every state is acknowledged to owe to itself, and its own citizens by doing whatsoever may best contribute to advance its own happiness and prosperity; and much more, what may be necessary to the preservation of its existence as a state.30 Nor must we forget that solemn declaration to which every one of the confederate states assented . … that whenever any form of government is destructive of the ends of its institution, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government. Consequently whenever the people of any state, or number of states, discovered the inadequacy of the first form of federal government to promote or preserve their independence, happiness, and union, they only exerted that natural right in rejecting it, and adopting another, which all had unanimously assented to, and of which no force or compact can deprive the people of any state, whenever they see the necessity, and possess the power to do it. And since the seceding states, by establishing a new constitution and form of federal government among themselves, without the consent of the rest, have shown that they consider the right to do so whenever the occasion may, in their opinion require it, as unquestionable, we may infer that that right has not been diminished by any new compact which they may since have entered into, since none could be more solemn or explicit than the first, nor more binding upon the contracting parties. Their obligation, therefore, to preserve the present constitution, is not greater than their former obligations were, to adhere to the articles of confederation; each state possessing the same right of withdrawing itself from the confederacy without the consent of the rest, as any number of them do, or ever did, possess.
You said: “It’s not ‘propaganda’ if it was the central theme of the declarations of secession, which it was.
To what document(s) are you referring?