There is no "right" to secession or sovereignty. The United States was formed through violence and force, independence required a rebellion by American patriots, it wasn't as if the United States simply seceeded because there was some unspoken "right" to do so. Most of the States were carved out from Union territory, they were not sovereign states prior, they did not voluntarily join the Union. Native Hawaiians along with their King were forced to sign a new constitution transferring power to American elites in the late 19th century, which lead to Hawaii becoming and American territory, despite Native Hawaiian opposition. Later Hawaii voted to become a state, because the only other option was to remain a territory with little autonomy. California, Arizona, New Mexico and part of the western states were carved out of the blood of Mexican and American soldiers, The United States took the northern lands of Mexico by force.

So am I right here? Is there really some right out there to secession? Or was the civil war just another part of involuntary war and expansion that lead to what the United States is today? I would really appreciate input....

Please note that Texas is the exception here, it was once a sovereign state and joined the Union voluntarily.

The first such "exception" was the Republic of Vermont which was initially formed as a sovereign state. It voluntarily joined the Union in 1791.

There is no "right" to secession or sovereignty. The United States was formed through violence and force, independence required a rebellion by American patriots, it wasn't as if the United States simply seceeded because there was some unspoken "right" to do so.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Hah it was a good thing posting here, noted Piffle. So Texas and Vermont were once independent countries that voluntarily joined....

If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, “one Nation, indivisible.”)

To all persons, citizens of Sonoma, requesting them to remain at peace, and to follow their rightful occupations without fear of molestation.
The Commander in Chief of the Troops assembled at the Fortress of Sonoma gives his inviolable pledge to all persons in California not found under arms that they shall not be disturbed in their persons, their property or social relations one to another by men under his command.

San Francisco Earthquake of 1905 1906

Joseph Ryan writes an interesting piece, here, about this very subject.

In this country it was decided that the people should frabricate for themselves their government. And that is all we can do if we pretend to carry out the doctrines upon which we entered upon the war―namely, that a State could not go out of the Union, and that, therefore, we could not make a conquest of her as if she were out.

Mr. Howard: "The United States of America in Congress assembled has the right to make that government and enforce it."
Mr. Sumner: "Beyond all question."
Mr. Cowan: "Then you proceed against them precisely as though you proceeded against a foreign State in case of conquest, but that is not under the Constitution."

Note: This one sentence captures in a nutshell the reality of the American Civil War; in what high school, or college, is the reality of this taught?

And this doctrine of the right of conquest is precisely the doctrine which was held by the Parliament and the King of Great Britain in our Revolution. It is the doctrine which has been held by all tyrannies from the time the world began. If this Government becomes a tyranny, how is it to be changed, unless there is some such right of revolution somewhere?

Note: There it is, the objective truth of history American historians, by and large, cannot bring themselves to teach their students. How is it to be changed, if the right of revolution is not recognized, as a right? How is Syria's Government to change? How is China's? How is ours? Without it?

I would sure like to see just one of those "formal agreements" that permit a state to withdraw from the Union if it holds that the Federal Government is violating the Constitution. Maybe they are all secret documents held in some undisclosed location, perhaps where Dick Cheney once stayed.

"Then you proceed against them precisely as though you proceeded against a foreign State in case of conquest, but that is not under the Constitution."
Note: This one sentence captures in a nutshell the reality of the American Civil War; in what high school, or college, is the reality of this taught?
And this doctrine of the right of conquest is precisely the doctrine which was held by the Parliament and the King of Great Britain in our Revolution. It is the doctrine which has been held by all tyrannies from the time the world began. If this Government becomes a tyranny, how is it to be changed, unless there is some such right of revolution somewhere?
Note: There it is, the objective truth of history American historians, by and large, cannot bring themselves to teach their students. How is it to be changed, if the right of revolution is not recognized, as a right?

ah yes secessionists, my second favorite group of people to argue with after birthers. Besides the civil war, Texas v. White pretty much solved all doubts.

What about the state of Franklin?

It was a free and autonomous territory.