Read my sentence again, ' In 1789, neither the President, congress, nor judiciary could decide whether or not a state ratified ...' The original states did not seek approval of anyone.
It is actually quite easy to establish a precedent for the court to decide [Roe v. Wade is one example]. Prior to seceding Federal representatives of the Southern states acting on behalf of the nation as a whole could have petitioned the courts for approval of the project.
RvW was a court case - filed by a petitioner with a respondent. If any state was harmed by the secession of a state, it was that state's responsibility to file suit. The court does not deliver advisory opinions!
Meaningless and out of context.
Nonsense, if Chief Justice Chase believed that secession was not rebellion, then there goes Lincoln's pretext for war, and that President Davis and the Confederacy had NOT commited treason. Meaning that Union had waged a war of aggression against innocents. Hardly meaningless and out of context.
"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States". How does Secession proceed [legally] without trampling on the rights of the citizens who do not wish to depart from the Union?
The clause means that a state cannot discriminate against citizens of another state while said "foreign" citizen is domiciled there. It does NOT mean that the laws written in Massachussets are incorporated into Georgia law. Again, in a Constitutionally MANDATED republican form of government, the minority must acquiesce to the will of the majority (via representative rule).
Once again you confuse the concept of legal Secession with Revolution. I've already asked you to 'man up' about the realities of what happened in 1860. Are you prepared to do so now?
Above you state that IF the states begged for permission to leave, and IF the court assents, then secession would be legal. Those same people that you claim would be harmed by the alleged illegal secessions would again be disaffected by your alleged legal secession. As it was, Tories not wishing to join the union under the Articles were dragged in against their will, as were those against ratification in 1789. Ted "The Swimmer' Kennedy can't can't prevent passage of a bill by a 1-99 vote, nor can 1 state prevent an amendment, nor can 1 "unionist" in a state prevent secession. If the unionist doesn't want to stay then they can move. It's not a difficult concept.
They trampled over the rights of citizens, the courts, and the remaining States.
The people of New York do not vote in South Carolina. A citizen of New York could not sue South Carolina in court. The people of New York could not ratify for South Carolina. The Constitution mandates a republican (representative) form of government which all states possessed. New Yorkers do not vote on SC representatives or delegates, nor amend or abolish their form of government.
Had they proceeded at a normal pace for such an endevour ...
Where exactly does the Constitution enumerate the 'normal' pace for said event?
'I also have no doubt the Southern people would have rejected the Confederacy.'
That certainly explains those overwhelming votes FOR secession </sarcasm>
Perhaps a more relevant question and one that gets to the core of the matter regarding the true nature of your relationship would be, do you pray together in church?
Yep. In church, at work, and at home. A very good friend of ours was injured in a wreck, and hospitalized, we saw her often, took food to her, helped her and her kids. She is black. I changed tires for a lady at 1AM on my way home one night - she was black. I've given money to strangers and the homeless - black. We grew up with a man we called our brother then and still do, he's black.
Vermont did.
If any state was harmed by the secession of a state, it was that state's responsibility to file suit.
The Constitution says otherwise. Secession is not legal if it violates the laws of the United States.
..if Chief Justice Chase believed that secession was not rebellion, then there goes Lincoln's pretext for war..
Your quote from Chase is unsourced, out of context, and meaningless. Since when does a Chief Justice by himself decide the law? Besides Justice Taney that is [lol].
The clause means that a state cannot discriminate against citizens of another state while said "foreign" citizen is domiciled there.
The State has NO power to revoke the citizenship the people living within its boundaries. "Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States", including the privilege to remain in the Union, and immunity from those who don't.
If the unionist doesn't want to stay then they can move. It's not a difficult concept.
There is no evidence that Southern Unionists were given any such option, and plenty of evidence of the contrary. try again.
Where exactly does the Constitution enumerate the 'normal' pace for said event?
The Constitution is silent about said event, which in itself casts grave doubt on it's legality in the first place. Up to now I have been generous toward your position by supposing that the 'concept' of Secession 'might' be legal. I see no similar flexibility in yours. Reflective of your underlying distain for the United States perhaps.
That certainly explains those overwhelming votes FOR secession
It explains the fraudulant manner in which the vote was taken, nothing more. Perhaps you could point us to an original source or research paper that would support your [overwhelming votes] position.