The right of secession has been argued since the Declaration of Independence. Agreed, secession should be allowed, but extremely limited.
The key issue in the right to secession is not separating oneself from a government that prevents the “self-determination” of “peoples,” but separating oneself from a government that fails in its purpose: the protection of individual rights.
See Jefferson Davis, “Farewell Address to the Senate”:
http://www.constitutionreader.com/reader.engz?doc=constitution&chapter=OEBPS/Text/ch98.xhtml
What individual rights did Davis say were being taken away?
https://www.nps.gov/bost/the-anti-secessionist-jefferson-davis.htm
“The Constitution recognizes the property in many forms, and imposes obligations in connection with that recognition.” Jefferson Davis states “It was not the right of any other person, despite political party, to take away someone’s personal property.”
Davis’ key argument for secession was the potential loss of the right to own slaves, not the issue of states’ rights or tariffs or sovereignty.
The mention of secession in the Federalist Papers is in Madison’s No. 58 which says:
“the baneful practice of secessions; a practice subversive of all the principles of order and regular government; a practice which leads more directly to public convulsions, and the ruin of popular governments, than any other which has yet been displayed among us.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed58.asp
The bottom line is that the issue was decided when the CSA lost and it is time for all to realize that fact and stop trying to justify a lost cause.
The right of secession has been argued since the Declaration of Independence. Agreed, secession should be allowed, but extremely limited.
The key issue in the right to secession is not separating oneself from a government that prevents the “self-determination” of “peoples,” but separating oneself from a government that fails in its purpose: the protection of individual rights.
See Jefferson Davis, “Farewell Address to the Senate”:
http://www.constitutionreader.com/reader.engz?doc=constitution&chapter=OEBPS/Text/ch98.xhtml
What individual rights did Davis say were being taken away?
https://www.nps.gov/bost/the-anti-secessionist-jefferson-davis.htm
“The Constitution recognizes the property in many forms, and imposes obligations in connection with that recognition.” Jefferson Davis states “It was not the right of any other person, despite political party, to take away someone’s personal property.”
Davis’ key argument for secession was the potential loss of the right to own slaves, not the issue of states’ rights or tariffs or sovereignty.
The complaints about unfair taxation and federal government expenditures were bitter and longstanding. Remember that the Tariff of Abominations sparked the nullification crisis in 1831. Still, no matter how unfair it was, no matter how much Southerners hated it, they could not argue it was unconstitutional. It plainly was constitutional. There was no limit set on the general welfare. There was no limit on the rate of tariff the federal government could impose.
What was unconstitutional however was failure to enforce the fugitive slave act of the US constitution. There, Southerners who saw their economic interest in Independence really could say the acts of the Northern states had violated the compact and provided them just grounds for secession. Notice that in Davis’ inaugural address as president of the CSA he said the objective of the Confederacy was to have as low a tariff as possible. Notice the Confederate Constitution set a maximum 10% tariff (a “revenue tariff” as opposed to a protective tariff). Notice the Confederate Constitution set strict limits on the General Welfare so as to prevent the kind of economic exploitation they had been subject to in the US. Notice the original 7 seceding states refused to accept the North’s “slavery forever” constitutional amendment when offered it as inducement to come back in. The vast majority of wars are about money. This one was no different.
No, the bottom line is that the States are sovereign and never agreed to surrender their sovereignty when they ratified the constitution. Government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed. Might does not make right.