should jeff davis have been hanged?

[Emsworth]

There is also an argument that the Earth is flat, but the facts suggest otherwise.  Whether the states could secede or not is not a matter of opinion, the 10th amendment makes their right to secede a fact.

There is absolutely no basis for this interpretation of the 10th amendment. Secession is inconsistent not only with the spirit and framework of the Constitution, but also with the text. A declaration of secession is equivalent to a declaration that the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States shall no longer apply to a particular state. But the supremacy clause makes the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States the "supreme Law of the Land," "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

[Emsworth]

In theory, I do not believe there is an "unbreakable" contract.  While I don't see the 10th Amendment as granting a right to secede, I think in 1861, could have been done.

The Constitution  is not an unbearable contract, but one that cannot be broken by one party without the consent of the others.

I agree that secession would be permissible with the consent of the other states. However, there appears to be only one constitutionally recognized mechanism by which the states can grant such consent: ratifying a constitutional amendment.

I reiterate my view that secession is inconsistent with the text of the Constitution (specifically, the supremacy clause). However, I do not see the legality or constitutionality of secession as a remotely relevant issue. Remember that the United States itself became independent by "seceding" from Great Britain. Declaring and fighting for independence was technically an act of treason, and a manifest violation of British law. That does not mean, however, that the American War of Independence was immoral or philosophically unjustified. Indeed, practically nobody cares that the war was illegal.

[Emsworth]

The Supremacy Clause argument is circular. The issue is precisely whether a state, upon declaration of secession, is still a part of "the Land."

That's a rather literalistic interpretation of the term of art "law of the land."

The Constitution cannot be "supreme" if another legislative act (namely, the declaration of secession) can completely displace it, nor can it be "law" if obedience to it is purely voluntary.

[Emsworth]

The Constitution's text, moreover, confirms that its application to a particular place may cease. Congress can unquestionably dispose of acquired territory; see Article IV, Sect. 3, cl. 2: "[t]he Congress shall have power to dispose of ... Territory ... belonging to the United States."

I believe that I have discussed this objection to the supremacy clause argument before (see here).

Of course, you are perfectly correct that the territory clause allows Congress to dispose of federal territory, thereby terminating the applicability of the Constitution in that territory. Likewise, the amendment clause in Article V allows the states to terminate the applicability of the Constitution, either in part or in whole, with respect to any part of the country whatsoever. Clearly, the "once American soil, always American soil" principle is utterly invalid. But that was not the principle I was advancing. Rather, I was arguing that a state may not unilaterally adopt a declaration that it is no longer subject to the Constitution and laws of the United States (which is all secession amounts to).

I agree that the nature and framework of the Constitution are inconsistent with secession. Indeed, to some extent, I accept the reasonability of your alternative reading of the supremacy clause, and only prefer my interpretation because it is more consistent with the intentions of the framers and ratifiers as expressed in the Preamble, and with the nature of the document as a whole.

[Emsworth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Firstly, you have not provided any evidence whatsoever for this claim. Secondly, the claim is, even disregarding the lack of evidence, utterly without merit.

The Articles of Confederation, which predated the Constitution, explicitly provided that "the Union shall be perpetual." It is hard to imagine that the Constitution, which was clearly intended to authorize more centralization rather than less, would have repealed the perpetuity of the Union. It is even harder to imagine that such a repeal would have been achieved by implication, rather than by the insertion of an express clause authorizing secession.

More importantly, however, the pretext under which the Constitution may or may not have been ratified is utterly irrelevant. More relevant are the text and nature of the document. Both suggest that secession is forbidden.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are a number of problems with this view. Most importantly, the Constitution is not a mere contract. It is the "law of the land."

But even if we accept the idea that the Constitution is a contract, your analysis is inadequate. By definition, a contract is binding. The whole point of a contract is that all parties irrevocably commit themselves to the terms. This is why breach of contract is forbidden.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am not attempting to discuss whether secession is just or unjust. I am merely saying that it is unconstitutional. If you want to argue that the Constitution is not binding because its signers are dead, you are free to do so, but I doubt that any reasonable person would take you seriously.

But the states that ratified the Contract are still alive.

Last time I checked, states weren't human. As far as I'm concerned, only individuals can ratify contracts.

But the States were the main groups in the Contract.

If only individuals can ratify contracts, then the Constitution is not a contract, because it was ratified by the states. You are simply contradicting yourself.

[Emsworth]

New England flirted with this option several times in the early parts of the 19th century and secession was taught as a legal option at West Point.

It is absolutely true that a number of states regarded secession as constitutionally permissible. However, it is the actual text of the document, and not the interpretation of any particular state, that must dictate the outcome.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We need not even look as far as Texas or Panama. The United States themselves originally "seceded" from the empire of Great Britain. The Declaration of Independence was a violation of British law; in fact, it amounted to treason. In all probability, Texas' secession from Mexico and Panama's secession from Mexico were also illegal.

I am only claiming that secession violates the Constitution of the United States. But that does not mean that secession would never be justified. Indeed, even illegal actions (such as a revolution) are sometimes acceptable responses to tyranny.