They don't get a “we don't want to be anymore, so we are not” vote. They don't have that power, either legally or (as things were actually decided) militarily.
Glad to see all your arguments supporting you position!
I already stated that they did so AFTER they had seceeded - so that in an of itself can not be used as justification. Instead you must argue that the secession itself was invalid.
There seems to be a lot of disagreement over whether states had/have this “right” - repeating your “were, are and shall remain” does not make it more correct. I’ll gladly discuss this with you if your willing to actually bring some arguments to the table ...
Right.
It is undeniable that the South had legal options they chose to make no attempt to exercise. Instead they chose to “appeal to arms,” largely because they assumed the success of their revolt would be swift and relatively painless.
This turned out to be a mistaken assumption. But it was not unreasonable. Most informed foreign political and military observers thought the CSA would succeed.
The reason for this gap between perception and reality is probably that the world was changing rapidly, and political/military perception was lagging behind. Industry and the railroad made it possible for the Union to field, supply and move an army large enough to conquer the South.
In 1850 or earlier southern secession would have probably succeeded relatively quickly and bloodlessly. The difference between population and wealth was not nearly as great as in 1860, and in particular the railroad network would probably not have been able to support the Union war effort.
OTOH, in 1870 the Union would have probably won relatively quickly, since the population, wealth, industry and railroad disproportion would have been even greater than a decade before.
IOW, the South chose to secede at the only time in our history when a long bloody war was possible.
Thanks, guys.