Compare to the current situation in the US where taxpayers are supporting the "poor" with subsistence packages which are often more costly than they themselves can afford, if you want a similar sentiment.
I have read the Constitution, and saw nothing to prevent a State from dissociating itself from the Union. If one considers the powers not enumerated and reserved to the Federal Government are reserved to the States and to the People, and further considers that a Right not enumerated may nonetheless exist even though it is not specifically stated, the right of a group of people to freely associate might be implied as well as an individual Right. To infer from that somehow that the Constitution would prohibit the dissolution, in toto, or in part, of the Union--especially in light of the very origin of the Republic--would require some extraordinary contortions of logic.
Furthermore, the sentiment contained in another seminal founding document, the Declaration of Independence: " That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, ..." was still fresh in the minds of many not intent on maintaining the status quo.
Americans have always reserved the right to rebel--it is part of our nature.
Many of the little industrialized States joined South Carolina, and the list would have continued to grow had Virginia seceded in time to permit the Maryland Legislature to vote on secession before the State was invaded by Northern Militias. (The MD legislature was placed under house arrest at Fort McHenry, Habeas Corpus suspended by Lincoln.)
Consider that nearly half of the country was sufficiently intent on separation to fight for it, if necessary, and the only question becomes one of what was the final straw, not what single thing moved the South to secession. That no one would want another nation to have an armed presence in the midst of and controlling a vital harbor, and would be willing to use force to evict that presence is a no-brainer. In the mind of the South Carolinians, Fort Sumpter was just such an entity.
Consider carefully how the Right to dissociate from the Union is treated. We are again at a juncture where large portions of the country are at loggerheads over economic and other issues. We again find ourselves squared off over an abyss of disagreement at a fundamental level, where some embrace the overreach of Federal Government and others eschew it--favoring instead local solutions. We have reached the point where the Federal Government is not doing its Constitutionally enumerated tasks (securing the borders, for instance), and yet will not allow the States to secure the international borders within their jurisdictions. We have taxation without effective representation. We have swarms of Federal officers sent forth to disrupt commerce and travel, and have standing armies of federal agents and militarized police armed with military grade equipment. We are not secure in our persons, places, papers nor effects from the very government sworn to uphold the Right to be so.
Frankly, our forbears would have been up at arms long ago.
So if one attacks, historically, the Right of the South to secede, that has serious implications for some lines of thought for the present.
If we are to learn from History, we need to look at a less distorted picture than the "good guys/bad guys" fable and consider many of the issues which impelled those in the 1860s to consider schism as the best solution may be echoed in the issues of today.
In the minds of many, we have a new slavery, overseen by the IRS, a rogue agency which has been used to further political aims, which forcibly extracts a "voluntary" income tax and will decide not just who wins or loses in an economic sense, but can be used to deny essential health care if current efforts come to fruition--effectively deciding not just who is economically successful, but who lives or dies. This is not a Constitutionally enumerated power of the Federal Government, and has the potential to fly in the face of the fifth and 14th amendments as well.
When we deal with a government which has such visible contempt for its own seminal documents and founding precepts, which will not perform its Constitutionally mandated tasks nor permit other governmental entities to step into the breach, seeking to eliminate what might be the only viable (if fundamentally undesirable) option would be folly.
Yes, he did and there was that Nullification Ordinance in 1832 and President Jackson's formal written response. At about the same time, he asked that the folks in South Carolina be informally advised that he was prepared to personally lead an army into South Carolina and "hang the first secessionist I see from the first tree I can reach." So, it was pretty clear how that Southern president felt about the "right to secede."
I have read the Constitution, and saw nothing to prevent a State from dissociating itself from the Union.
We do see things differently. I believe that unlike the Articles of Confederation (a league of states), the Constitution creates political bonds between the citizens of the United States. The Constitution begins with the words "We the people of the United States." Patrick Henry argued that the Constitution should not be ratified because it was apparent to him from the text of the proposed Constitution that its effect would be to convert the existing "confederation" of states into a "great consolidated government" created by "we the people of the United States" rather than "we the states."
As an individual, I have political bonds with all other Americans. I also have personal constitutional rights as an American citizen. I have first amendment rights to speech, religion and press. I have second amendment rights to own a personal firearm. I have the right to vote for individuals to represent me in the U.S. Congress. If my state proposes to sentence me to live in one of its dungeons or to kill me, I have a right to a trial, I have a right to be represented by an attorney, I have a right to be judged by a jury and a slough of other procedural rights. Also, I have the right to seek the assistance of a United States district court if my state chooses to disregard my rights under the United States Constitution. A "secession" by my state purports to sever my political bonds with other individual Americans, to strip me of my American citizenship and to immediately strip me of every one of my rights under the United States Constitution. I don't believe that a state has the right to do that under our Constitution.
Thus, while you see the issue as one of convenience to the State, I see the issue as including a conflict between the interests of the State and the interests of the individual. As an historical aside, the only time that secession was ever attempted was, according to the secessionists, for the purpose of protecting the institution of slavery. The secessionists were at the time using the machinery of their State governments to prop up a particularly ugly abuse of basic human rights. So, again, we were confronted with a basic conflict between the interests of the State and the interests of individuals. Secessionists always seem to side with the interests of the State at the expense of individual rights and liberties.
Americans have always reserved the right to rebel--it is part of our nature.
That can't be disputed. In fact, that's what happened.
Maybe if a state or county or city or town or village or neighborhood were to someday present a legitimate case showing that a secession was necessary to protect or promote individual rights, then maybe something could be worked out. The problem is that secessionists never seem to be motivated by any interest in individual rights or liberties. It's always about the State and "State's rights."
The Constitution does not mention words like "secession", "withdrawal" or "disunion".
Neither, for that matter, do state ratification statements.
Instead, states like New York and Virginia declared their powers could be "reassumed" if "necessary".
But the Constitution does clearly provide Federal powers in response to "rebellion", "insurrection", "domestic violence", "invasions", "treason" and "war".
The Constitution also provides numerous methods for states to resolve conflicts within constitutional limits.
Those include not just presidential elections, Congress and Supreme Court, but also the amendment process and even calling for a new Constitutional Convention.
Further, Founders were clear and consistent in saying that "disunion" could only lawfully come from mutual consent (meaning Congress) or from "usurpations" and "oppression" making secession "necessary" (i.e., confirmed by the Supreme Court).
In short: there had to be legitimate, actual reasons for secession, such as those they themselves endured from the British.
Founders never intended unilateral declarations of secession "at pleasure" to be constitutional.
So, non-constitutional secession would fall under the Founders categories of "rebellion" "treason" and/or "war".
But in November 1860, when South Carolina called its Secession Convention, there was neither "mutual consent" nor some Federal breach of constitutional contract to lawfully justify unilateral secession.
Indeed, there had been only one change from previous conditions: the recent constitutional election of "Black Republican" Abraham Lincoln.
And secessionist documents make clear: it was not some list of serious past grievances -- such as those in our Founders Declaration of Independence -- but rather their concerns over the future of slavery under those nasty, rascally Black-Republicans, which drove their Declarations of Secession.
In short: they declared secession unconstitutionally, "at pleasure".
But secession itself did not cause Civil War.
For five months after Lincoln's election, there was still no war, because the Federal Government still refused to respond to secessionists many acts of rebellion, insurrection and "domestic violence" against it.
Lincoln even announced in his first inaugural address that secessionists could not have Civil War unless they themselves started it.
Lincoln did not know that Confederate President Jefferson Davis had already issued orders to do just that, at Fort Sumter.
So when war came, it was not because of secession itself, but because secessionists themselves chose to start it.
The lessons for today are clear and simple: you will have a much better chance of protecting your vital interests within the law than outside it.
Rebellion, insurrection &/or war will result in the worst possible outcomes, from your perspective.