I think the secession debate (let us imagine back in 1850 or so when regionalism was real hot) would hinge on the question: "If it took a majority of 3/4ths of the states to create the Union, can it take a minority of states to disolve it?" I actually can't even conceive of how the debate would rage back then over that question. I support the idea of secession, and ultimately power will decide what is law, so secession is "legal" so long as the states are more powerful than any other entity that would hold the Union together by force. If 49 states voted to be communist dictatorships, even that remaining minority of 1 would have every right to protect its people from such an usurpation. But, constitutionally speaking, a state did not enter the Union alone. It entered the Union with a majority of other states, so I don't think constitutionally a state can justify its secession. That is to say, even if every last voter, all 100%, wanted to secede, the only legal reason you can conceive for secession is survival. If the Union were going down a path no prudent or rational person could follow, and that state felt it necessary to bail out. It would hardly be able to claim a right to secession, however, based upon the constitution they signed as a Union. Any other angles anyone can discuss this from?