I don't recall saying that, but I have said that I believe secession is legal if done within the bounds of the Constitution. That is, with the consent of a majority of all the parties impacted.
I don't think the New York or Virginia delegates would have ratified the Constitution under those circumstances, and the Union as we know it would not have come to be.
We all know how Madison felt on conditional ratification. He believed it was not ratification at all. Either the Constitution was ratified as is, or it was not. No ifs or buts. But let's look at that ratification document in more detail. There was this understanding: "That standing Armies in time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in Cases of necessity; and that at all times, the Military should be under strict Subordination to the civil Power." Well that didn't happen, a standing army was specifically permitted under the Constitution and was maintained from the very beginning. The document also contained this clause: "That the Prohibition contained in the said Constitution against en post facto Laws, extends only to Laws concerning Crimes." Well that didn't happen either, the prohibition against ex post facto laws applies to all laws. So does that mean that New York didn't really ratify the Constitution? Not at all. Because even with all the qualifiers the document contained the phrase, "We the said Delegates, in the Name and in the behalf of the People of the State of New York Do by these presents Assent to and Ratify the said Constitution." They assented to the Constitution as written, and that document trumps all other laws, constitutions and, yes, ratification documents. What they thought the Constitution meant doesn't matter. And if they operated under mistaken impressions that still doesn't release them from their obligations and restrictions under the Constitution.
check u.s. v. texas (1869). you're wrong. you don't have a constitutional right to secede. of course, that decision came AFTER the war.
the union held jefferson davis for several years after the war but never tried him for treason, ultimately releasing him without charge. why? because every constitutional expert they consulted told the feds they'd lose the case.
it's all kind of moot because whether one has a right to secede was really an issue decided at gunpoint.
It wasn't a condition. It was a statement of how they understood the Constitution. The New York ratification convention took out the words "on condition."
WEDNESDAY, July 23, 1788. — Mr. JONES moved, that the words on condition, in the form of the ratification, should be obliterated, and that the words in full confidence should be substituted — which was carried.
What they thought the Constitution meant doesn't matter.
Here's what Madison said about Virginia's "understanding" of the Constitution in his Virginia Report of 1799.
To place this resolution in its just light, it will be necessary to recur to the act of ratification by Virginia, which stands in the ensuing form:
We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the federal convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon, do, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known, that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them, whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression; and that every power not granted thereby, remains with them, and at their will. That, therefore, no right of any denomination can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate, or House of Representatives, acting in any capacity, by the President, or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes; and that, among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press, cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States.Here is an express and solemn declaration by the convention of the state, that they ratified the Constitution in the sense, that no right of any denomination can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified by the government of the United States or any part of it; except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution; and in the sense particularly, "that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and freedom of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States."
Words could not well express, in a fuller or more forcible manner, the understanding of the convention, that the liberty of conscience and the freedom of the press, were equally and completely exempted from all authority whatever of the United States.