Sessession explicity ruled out in US Constitution

Grey Wolf

Donor
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.


This needs to be reconciled with


"Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union
The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D. 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.
In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do."

They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government." Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies "are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."

In pursuance of this Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen States proceeded to exercise its separate sovereignty; adopted for itself a Constitution, and appointed officers for the administration of government in all its departments - Legislative, Executive and Judicial. For purposes of defense, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in 1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first Article "that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."

Under this Confederation the war of the Revolution was carried on, and on the 3rd of September, 1783, the contest ended, and a definite Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the independence of the Colonies in the following terms:

"ARTICLE 1 - His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."

Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.
In 1787, Deputies were appointed by the States to revise the Articles of Confederation, and on 17th September, 1787, these Deputies recommended for the adoption of the States, the Articles of Union, known as the Constitution of the United States.

The parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States; they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed the compact was to take effect among those concurring; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then invested with their authority.

If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they then were - separate, sovereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation.
By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. On the 23d May, 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her People, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken.

Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.

We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows:

"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.

Adopted December 24, 1860"
 

Grey Wolf

Donor
They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government."

The basis of the argument seems to be about the underlying assumption behind agreeing an insoluble union - if these are broken then does the declarer have reserved rights to break it too ?

One assumes that the position both of South Carolina (and the others) and of the federal authorities were backed up by a mass of legal opinion from the highest judges available

Therefore, as its like the war in Iraq, every legal opinion differs and a load of them could be lies given up for political reasons (esp the British from Goldsmith), then taking the analogy back to secession it comes down to what YOU believe, and how you interpret things yourself

In the USA, only force could decide who was 'right'. If the CSA had achieved independence then the position of South Carolina ETC would not be so apparently weak as it is seen as being today

Grey Wolf
 

Grey Wolf

Donor
zoomar said:
Now Grey Wolf, why on earth would anyone consider a document produced by the secessionist government of South Carolina an unbiased argument on this issue? I know for your own sinister purposes you'd like to see the US broken up, but really! No one denies each state is sovereign, as you state "in its own areas of responsibility". It's just that this sovereignity does not extend to entering into treaties or arrangements with themselves or other nations which supersede or replace US federal government as currently constituted.

Your argument might have validity if the articles of confederation had not already established a United States of America and if these articles had not prohibited secession. The states signing the constitution in 1789 had already given up a lot of their sovereignity.

I wasn't quoting it as proof of anything, I was using it as one element in a series of posts to show where the problem with this discussion lies. Look at them as a whole

Grey Wolf
 
Consider:

The colonies that declared independence in 1776 did so as a group, and did so by ratifying a document that could ONLY be ratified unanimously. Thus there was no period of 'independent independence', where states exerted sovereign powers outside of the aegis of the union. Hence any claims of sovereignty were rhetorical at best (and the South Carolinians excelled at rhetoric...smile...), and certainly held no basis in law. It is this that fatally compromises any attempt by the South Carolinians (or any other seceeding state) to claim that they exerted a sovereign character before the formation of the union. An attempt to seceed was not an attempt to regain (or reclaim) a previous status, it would be an attempt to create a status that did not previously exist.

The notion that simply because multiple theories of secession existed before (and after) the ACW that they were all equally valuable is at its core flawed. Just as we would call some AH scenarios ASB, implying that they are in effect more fantasy than speculation, the wishful thinking so popular among CSA politicians (and their latter day fans) is not based on any existing body of legal theory, draws no support from the historical record, and in fact is supported only by a rhetoric mercifully free of the ravages of logic...
 
David: The idea of dual sovereignty, while popular among some political scientists (i.e. historians with failing grades), was certainly not embraced by the founders, who (with, as I mentioned before, the possible exception of Jefferson) were under no illusions as the respective roles of the states and the federal govt. The states were meant to be an offset on the power of the feds, and such were creations of it. The very fact that the states were proscribed from a host of policy areas reserved for federal control suggests in fact that there were definite and specific limits on state autonomy, and in fact that such autonomy did not exist. The federal govts monopoly on numerous areas of govt activity (nat defense comes most readily to mind, interstate commerce is another excellent example) which could be engaged in by both states and the fed suggests that the states were not seen as equal partners, but rather as subordinate entities, albeit collegial ones.

Lets also remember the legal record FOLLOWING the revolution right through the ACW, where the feds ability to act for the states, EVEN IN DEFIANCE OF THEIR WISHES, was enshrined again and again. Clearly this is an explicit, and repeated rejection of the state sovereignty argument...
 
Grey Wolf said:
I wasn't quoting it as proof of anything, I was using it as one element in a series of posts to show where the problem with this discussion lies. Look at them as a whole

Grey Wolf

Wolf,
At the time I replied, only one of your posts had appeared. Nonetheless, unless I am misreading something, all of your materials are taken from the polemic declarations South Carolina used to justify its succession, and are thus hardly unbiased statements. They have little bearing in an attempt to interpret the validity of secession. I will defer to Scott, who is making the contextual case against a right to secession in the US constitution much better than I can.
 
What about Vermont's brief fourteen year existence as an independent Republic?

From: http://www.vtonly.com/hstymar8.htm

The Republic of Vermont was the focus of our Trivia Contest for March 1, 1998.

The Vermont Republic (1777 - 1791) had a brief but politically rich existence. Some might argue that it owed its existence to Ethan and Ira Allen's desire to expand their control of this newly settled region. Others would describe the creation of the Republic as the Allens' skillful political response to the competing factions in the Continental Congress who wanted control of parts of Vermont for their own colonies. However one looks at it, the Republic was certainly the reason that Vermont survived as an entity long enough to become the fourteenth state of the United States of America.

The Vermont Republic set a tone for Vermonters that would echo down through the centuries to this day. Independent, suspicious of outsiders' motives, determined to go their own way and do the right thing. In 1777, the Westminster Conventions drafted a constitution and declared "New Connecticut alias Vermont" an independent state. The constitution resembled Pennsylvania's, but went further than others had before in that it granted full citizenship to all adult males regardless of property ownership, outlawed slavery, and set the rules for an independent nation which nevertheless contemplated admission to the United States if the Continental Congress should ever resolve its deadlock of competing claims to her territory.
 
David: Outstanding reference, but it fails to make the case. We could make an ever stronger argument for Texas, after all (and believe me...many of those down here do...sigh...), but since both Vt and Tx joined the union following the adoption of the constitution, both explicitly surrendered sovereignty, and thus cannot claim to continue to possess it.
 

Grey Wolf

Donor
zoomar said:
Wolf,
At the time I replied, only one of your posts had appeared. Nonetheless, unless I am misreading something, all of your materials are taken from the polemic declarations South Carolina used to justify its succession, and are thus hardly unbiased statements. They have little bearing in an attempt to interpret the validity of secession. I will defer to Scott, who is making the contextual case against a right to secession in the US constitution much better than I can.

No, he isn't - he is making a SUBJECTIVE case

In order to understand the issue, you HAVE TO compare the Articles of Confederation to the Declaration of Secession from the lead state to do so. You HAVE TO weight the arguments up against each other.

I am merely putting people in a position to do so. That is CONTEXTUALISATION

Grey Wolf
 

Grey Wolf

Donor
Scott Rosenthal said:
David: The idea of dual sovereignty, while popular among some political scientists (i.e. historians with failing grades), was certainly not embraced by the founders, who (with, as I mentioned before, the possible exception of Jefferson) were under no illusions as the respective roles of the states and the federal govt. The states were meant to be an offset on the power of the feds, and such were creations of it. The very fact that the states were proscribed from a host of policy areas reserved for federal control suggests in fact that there were definite and specific limits on state autonomy, and in fact that such autonomy did not exist. The federal govts monopoly on numerous areas of govt activity (nat defense comes most readily to mind, interstate commerce is another excellent example) which could be engaged in by both states and the fed suggests that the states were not seen as equal partners, but rather as subordinate entities, albeit collegial ones.

Lets also remember the legal record FOLLOWING the revolution right through the ACW, where the feds ability to act for the states, EVEN IN DEFIANCE OF THEIR WISHES, was enshrined again and again. Clearly this is an explicit, and repeated rejection of the state sovereignty argument...

Bollocks, if the states agree to surrender sovereignty over certain things willingly to the federal authorities then of course they will demarcate where authority will lie, the question is not this at all. The question is whether the surrender of these aspects of sovereignty is permanent, and whether if the federal authorities change the nature of the agreement ex post facto the sovereign entity can declare the agreement abrogated and depart.

Personally, I cannot read the Articles to say that they CAN, but I say again that legal authorities are and were split on this, and if you strip out the politically motivated decisions (i.e. please give me a viewpoint saying its legal, or illegal) then in the end it is a matter of opinion.

Grey Wolf
 
Grey, I see the point that you are making, but I still must disagree. To give the articles of secession equal weight to the articles of confederation (and the constitution, whichis the truly relevant document here) is to make a value judgement that the secessionists were in fact parties of equal standing to the founders. Clearly they were not. Suggesting that their opinions hold equal value to those of the founders is to argue that any self-interested parties debating points should be considered to have equal worth in a discussion of abstract political theory. This is obviously not the case, and hence your argument fails.

Secessionists (before and after the war) attempted to invent all sorts of reasons why their actions were not only legal but necessary, but the bottom line is that before the revolution, the original 13 states were all colonies that agreed AS A GROUP to become a nation AS A GROUP. Sovereignty would require that they would first become indepedent separately, then choose to merge acknowleging their independent status at the time of union. This never happened, which fatally undercuts their argument that the bonds between them were merely voluntary, and in fact transitory by their very nature. The sort of argument that you are citing (and by the way, impressive documentation on such short notice) was the sort made by the southern states in 1820 and again in 1850, and again of course during the ACW. Simply making the argument, offering nothing but rhetoric to support it, does not make the case...
 

Grey Wolf

Donor
Scott Rosenthal said:
Grey, I see the point that you are making, but I still must disagree. To give the articles of secession equal weight to the articles of confederation (and the constitution, whichis the truly relevant document here) is to make a value judgement that the secessionists were in fact parties of equal standing to the founders. Clearly they were not. Suggesting that their opinions hold equal value to those of the founders is to argue that any self-interested parties debating points should be considered to have equal worth in a discussion of abstract political theory. This is obviously not the case, and hence your argument fails.

Sorry, I entirely disagree. Legally at the time, the Founders were simply rebel leaders against the established law and order, namely Britain. They had NO RIGHT under law to do what they did, yet they justified it by 'natural law' and the consent of the governed etc. This is EXACTLY what South Carolina was drawing an analogy with

There is no 'clearly they were not' - as far as they were concerned, the secessionists were the founding fathers of the Confederacy. It was born out of incompatibility with the Union. The comparison seemed exact.

The interpretations are different, depending on point of view

Grey Wolf
 
Scott and GW:

While there may be an established principle that there is a "right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted", having a candidate you don't like legitimately winning an election is hardly abusive government. When we were colonies we were subjects without representation, so our argument in favor of declaring independence was a bit stronger than South Carolinas.

Also, even if the original states legally WERE fully sovereign nations originally, how then do you fit the subsequently added states (except Texas), which had no existance at all outside of the Union, and were creations OF the union?

I think South Carolina's argument for secession is stronger today than it was in 1861.
 
Grey, we are actually closer than you think. The FF were indeed rebels, they admitted it, and accepted that. They did NOT argue that they were entitled to their rebellion by the existing system of laws in Britain (after all, there was no constituion that they could appeal to...smile...), unlike the secessionists who argued that an inherent right of secession existed within the consitution. That essential difference is the crux of the matter. The CSA founding fathers (a good appellation) were rebels, and they were traitors to their country. In and of itself, the moral value of that status is open to debate, and I would completely agree with you that this becomes a question of opinion. That they were rebels acting OUTSIDE the legal framework which they were rebelling against was NOT open to the same sort of interpetation.
 

Grey Wolf

Donor
Scott Rosenthal said:
Grey, we are actually closer than you think. The FF were indeed rebels, they admitted it, and accepted that. They did NOT argue that they were entitled to their rebellion by the existing system of laws in Britain (after all, there was no constituion that they could appeal to...smile...), unlike the secessionists who argued that an inherent right of secession existed within the consitution. That essential difference is the crux of the matter. The CSA founding fathers (a good appellation) were rebels, and they were traitors to their country. In and of itself, the moral value of that status is open to debate, and I would completely agree with you that this becomes a question of opinion. That they were rebels acting OUTSIDE the legal framework which they were rebelling against was NOT open to the same sort of interpetation.

Well, yes on an interpretation of law based on the existing agreements I entirely agree that South Carolina was wrong, But who am I ? No one of any conseqence

And it doesn't take into consideration the legacy of sovereignty, that in logical legal parlance the states had once been fully sovereign, and in so far as they had not given their rights over to the federal authorities they remained so afterwards.

You thus have 2 strands

1. What is sovereignty, can it be surrendered completely or is any surrender simply an agreement for the lifetime of the terms of the accord ? Regardless of what the words say this is the actual principle

2. If popular feeling is in favour of breaking an accord, what is democracy if you find yourself legally bound by an accord your people no longer believe in ? This is the right to rebellion, right to a consensus of the governed approach

As far as I can see, South Carolina's arguments rest on these twin foundations, and they need to be seen as legally separate

Grey Wolf
 

Grey Wolf

Donor
Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
Also, even if the original states legally WERE fully sovereign nations originally, how then do you fit the subsequently added states (except Texas), which had no existance at all outside of the Union, and were creations OF the union?

Not really sure what you mean, but I think you are saying that they cannot reclaim original sovereignty because they never had it in the first place. Is this true ? In order to become states they had to be incorporated as territories first, reach a critical mass of populace and then .... I don't know, did they vote on statehood or petition Congress ? I am not sure that it is actually relevant - in enacting this process, these territories are both creating and surrendering sovereignty under law

Grey Wolf
 
Grey Wolf said:
Not really sure what you mean, but I think you are saying that they cannot reclaim original sovereignty because they never had it in the first place. Is this true ? In order to become states they had to be incorporated as territories first, reach a critical mass of populace and then .... I don't know, did they vote on statehood or petition Congress ? I am not sure that it is actually relevant - in enacting this process, these territories are both creating and surrendering sovereignty under law

Grey Wolf

I don't understand your argument. The non-original states (except Texas) were created by the United States. They did not establish themselves as independent nations and then surrender their sovereignty to the US. They also did not all begin as territories. For instance, Maine was split off from Massachusetts. Did Maine become a sovereign nation and instantaneously surrender it's sovereignty to the Union? It was accomplished by an act of Congress, not by the people of Maine.
 
In response to the original question, if the Constitution clearly stated in such a way that no-one could argue the point, that Sessession was explicity ruled out. I would suggest that many of the top Confederate Generals would have decided to remain in the US army. One of the issues of debate from 1861 to 1866 was to what extent the curriculam at West Point made it possible for southerners to leave the US army and fight for the south.
 
Mark Ford said:
In response to the original question, if the Constitution clearly stated in such a way that no-one could argue the point, that Sessession was explicity ruled out. I would suggest that many of the top Confederate Generals would have decided to remain in the US army. One of the issues of debate from 1861 to 1866 was to what extent the curriculam at West Point made it possible for southerners to leave the US army and fight for the south.

Finally, somebody is again answering the original question. As my first post indicated, I agree with this. In fact, I would argue that the whole dynamic of the southern rebellion/protest would change from what it was in OTL. Either it would aim for the change of anti-slavery policy in Washington peacefully(including the removal of Lincoln by peaceful means -Monicagate, Iran-Contra, and Watergate are examples - maybe crazy Marthagate), outright assassination or a coup to remove Lincoln, or some folks would get up and move to Brazil. Who knows, they might even just wait and see what Lincoln actually does. I doubt that few of the OTL Confederate leaders whould push for secession if it were explicitly forbidded in the Constitution.
 
I think that some one would have looked not more than three generations back to the Revolutionary War and figured that they were entirely in the right to raise up in revolt against an oppressive government. What would probably also have to be ignored is the importance that Jefferson and Paine put on revolution.
 
Top