Interesting bit; Madison saying, at the time of the constitution:
[...]this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy.
… so the intent of the founders seemed to be, revolution ok (what they were doing), secession not ok.
Interesting stuff, if quite complex.
(edit) More, on how the actual secession of the southern states fit in :
The primary focus of the declaration is the perceived violation of the Constitution by northern states in not extraditing escaped slaves (as the Constitution required in Article IV Section 2) and actively working to abolish slavery (which they saw as Constitutionally guaranteed and protected). The main thrust of the argument was that since the Constitution, being a contract, had been violated by some parties (the northern abolitionist states), the other parties (the southern slave-holding states) were no longer bound by it.
Wikipedia:Secession in the UnitedStates has a pretty good overview for the uninformed (like me).
Interesting bit; Madison saying, at the time of the constitution:
… so the intent of the founders seemed to be, revolution ok (what they were doing), secession not ok.
Interesting stuff, if quite complex.
(edit) More, on how the actual secession of the southern states fit in :
I’m an American and I had to pick it up from context.