Replies

There are many provisions in the permanent United States Laws which prohibit unilateral secession from the perpetual union of the United States of America. To begin with:

Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.

[....]

XIII.

Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union. Know Ye that we the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained: And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said Confederation are submitted to them. And that the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual.

WhiskeyX: "There are many provisions in the permanent United States Laws which prohibit unilateral secession from the perpetual union of the United States of America."

Thanks for doing a masterful job here, defending truth & right, against endless Democrat inspired pro-Confederate propaganda.
Yes, we must never forget that the folks who first concocted all such cockamamie nonsense were 100% Democrats.
Today their descendants, now posing as Republicans, or at least "Conservatives", continue to perpetrate the Lost-Causer mythology, regardless of facts, reason or common sense, even though there are very few sympathetic ears left to listen these days.

I especially appreciate all your data on the Battle of Fort Sumter.
Just for perspective, let me add two points:

In the days just before Lincoln's inauguration on March 4, 1861, the Confederate Congress authorized raising an army of 100,000 troops, a call immediately responded to in the seven Deep South Confederate states.
This at a time when the entire US Army was circa 17,000 most, as you so well pointed out, scattered in forts out West.
So, the odds favoring Confederate arms in April 1861 at Fort Sumter were, at least in theory, 100,000 Confederates to fewer than 100 Union troops.
However, curiously enough, if you think about those 85 Union troops under Major Anderson's command in Fort Sumter, compared to the rest of the US Army, especially those east of the Mississippi, Fort Sumter takes on the same level of relative significance & importance then as, for example, Pearl Harbor did on December 7, 1941.
Pearl Harbor as a percent of total US forces in December 1941 was no greater than Fort Sumter in April 1861.

Finally, and to your point here, we should first note that DiogenesLamp has frequently argued: the US Declaration of Independence is the only controlling founding document, and since, says DL, it authorized unilateral, unapproved secession, that means any interpretation of the Constitution denying such a "right" must be wrong.
That's rubbish, of course, for one reason because circumstances in 1776 were totally different from those in 1860-1.
For another, the Declaration "authorized" no such secession as perpetrated in 1861, nor did any Founder ever argue in favor such a thing.
And, importantly, the Constitution was ratified by elected conventions in every state as, "the supreme law of the land".
So the Constitution certainly draws inspiration and interpretation from the Declaration, but in to court does the Declaration supersede the Constitution's Original Intent.

But now I notice your argument that the old Articles of Confederation are still in force, especially as they apply to the issue of "perpetual union" versus unilateral, unapproved secession.

Interesting, but I doubt if it would hold up a court, or in Congress.
The US Constitution is intended to be our Supreme Law, to be superseded by no other documents or ideologies, except those approved as Amendments.

Yes, it's true that Lincoln made a similar argument, in saying: since the old Articles were "perpetual" and the new Constitution "more perfect", the Constitution could not be less perpetual than the Articles.
And that's a good argument, but it's not the same thing as saying the old Articles are still in force.

Bottom line: the issue here is Founders' Original Intent, and on that there is no doubt they did not intend to authorize unapproved secession "at pleasure", meaning for no substantial material reasons.
And yet, in November 1860, when Deep South Fire Eaters began calling secession conventions, there were no material reasons, beyond threat to slavery represented by the election of "Ape" Lincoln's Black Republicans, officials who would not even take office for another four months.

No Founder condoned unilateral, unapproved declaration of secession "at pleasure".