[The Green Goblin]

The independent country of Virginia entered into a compact (which included significant military support) with states that were in open revolt against the U.S.

As has been pointed out, the secessionist states were not in revolt against civil authority, since the duly-elected governments of those states were the civil authority.

Nowhere does the Constitution state that the Union shall exist in perpetuity.

[r9etb]

since the duly-elected governments of those states were the civil authority.

Those duly-elected governments had authority only insofar as they do not contradict the Constitution.

[KrisKrinkle]

And in reply to you post 21L

The constituion does not have to state the Union shall exist in perpetuity. The Perpetual Union existed prior to the Constitution, by agreement of the States. Half the states you mentioned in post 21 seemed to agree with that about 1860.

[Festa]

I agree on the legality of succession. But I do not think it is absolute.

If a government has become abusive, then the people have the right to dissolve themselves of that union. One reason the government has grown so big is that they are under no threat from the states.

However, if a civil authority is being abusive and rebels against a government so it can pursue its abuses, then natural law kicks in and the fed's have to step in and protect the people's rights. That is the debate over the civil war.

I am not going to take a position here but the justification that there is no reason for succession is wrong on the norths part. Vice versa, it is wrong to think that a state can leave for any reason.

What is the right reason? well thats the debate

[sheltonmac]

"...the secessionist states were not in revolt against civil authority, since the duly-elected governments of those states were the civil authority."

Excellent point!