I know this is an old, old debate...

But once again it rears its ugly head.

Does, or did, states have the legal right to secede?

I'll keep this minimal because feedback is a must. If you're so interested, googling the Lakota Sioux will lead you to the story, (totally buried, must not rate anything) that the Lakota Nation has seceded from the Union. They cited numerous treaty violations, etc. and said more will be posted as things develop. BadBoy brings this to my attention.

This affects four states over a geographical mass nearly the size of Iraq. (Oddly enough.) So the breakroom hawks immediately say, "Well, the National Guard will take care of this."

I responded as best I could being that break was almost over, and never got to hear the "fruits" of discussion, but the question nags me so I bring it here. The Lakota differ from the southern states first and foremost in the reality of their nationhood before the existence of the United States. The Confederacy could claim no such history. The reasons for the South seceding are well documented, but none of them start with "Violations of the treaty of 1873, or 1825, or 1813." Keep in mind, these are treaties ratified by the Senate. Real treaties. Not some guidelines like the Geneva Convention.

It doesn't help that one of the first places this newly independent nation sends delegates to is Venezuela.

So, was it legal for the southern states to secede?