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.
[mac] Vermont did.
4CJ, you gonna tell him, or am I?