[Dr. Franklin]

Constitutionally, there can be no such thing as secession of a State from the Union. But it does not follow that because a State cannot secede constitutionally, it is obliged under all circumstances to remain in the Union.
Source: American Historical Association

The issue is the rights of state under the Tenth Amendment. Several of them ratified the constitution while claiming the right to secede. Had the Confederate states made their case in front of SCOTUS rather then on the battlefield, they may very well have prevailed. Congress expanded SCOTUS in 1863 to 10 justices in part because SCOTUS had been considered too sympathetic to the South. As a legal issue, it hasn't really been addressed by SCOTUS.

[Robert DeLong]

I was waiting for someone to make that point. Would the Supreme Court side with the state, who is no longer a state or would it defer to the U.S. Government even thought the argument is a legitimate one? Would the state say that the Supreme Court does not rule them anymore? I never try to guess what they will rule, anymore. However, since there is no statement in the constitution prohibiting the U.S. Government from recovering what is theirs, what happens when they try to recover it, and the state denies them their claim? 🙂

So, would a Supreme Court decision that the state didn't like have changed anything? We will never know because it wasn't tried. 🙂

[woodpusher]

As a legal issue, it hasn't really been addressed by SCOTUS.

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700, 724-725 (1869)

It is needless to discuss, at length, the question whether the right of a State to withdraw from the Union for any cause, regarded by herself as sufficient, is consistent with the Constitution of the United States.

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to “be perpetual.” And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained “to form a more perfect Union”. It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not? ... The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States

The Court may have unloaded a pile of bunk as a holding, but it did address the matter of secession, and stated it was not constitutional.