Democracy at work?

Question:

Democracy at work?

April 15, 1861, Abraham Lincoln declares his intentions toward secessionist States and calls an emergency session of Congress.

http://johnston.senate.gov/artandhistory...

During that session, July 4, 1861, and July 11, 1861, the 10 Senate quickly expelled all 10 southern senators by a vote of 32 to10. . By February, 1862, another four Senators were expelled.

In other words, a consensus of 22 Senators of 42, voted to carry out a war against half the population of the US.

I'm not asking your preferences about the subsequent preservation of the Union.

I'm asking whether you believe one half the population of the US could rightfully force the other half to live as it did not wish to live, by force of arms?

I'm asking whether you can point to a single sentence or paragraph in the US Constitution stating or implying member states could not withdraw, should they wish to do so?

Additional Details

1 week ago
I specifically asked about the US Constitution, which each member agreed to abide.

I didn't ask what the Supreme Court might have said about the issue almost a decade after the blood flood began.

The States who ratified the US Constitution had a right to reasonably expect to be held to the document they ratified. North and South.

I have no argument with that. I'd observe, however, that they didn't have the right to expect they'd be invaded, burned, and forced at gun-point to live by requirements they'd probably never have agreed to.

What a Union Supreme Court said in 1868 is a moot reiteration of fait accompli.

1 week ago
Furthermore, there's nothing to suggest slavery was an issue in 1861, as it pertains to decisions about whether to war, or not to war.

The issue was almost exclusively about the question of whether the member States had a right to withdraw.

Obfuscating the focus of the question by introducing unrelated issues does confuse, but it doesn't answer the fundamental question.

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: 1 week ago
I specifically asked about the US Constitution, which each member agreed to abide.

I didn't ask what the Supreme Court might have said about the issue almost a decade after the blood flood began.

The States who ratified the US Constitution had a right to reasonably expect to be held to the document they ratified. North and South.

I have no argument with that. I'd observe, however, that they didn't have the right to expect they'd be invaded, burned, and forced at gun-point to live by requirements they'd probably never have agreed to.

What a Union Supreme Court said in 1868 is a moot reiteration of fait accompli.