Stephen,

You said: "Then you you must consider the Tenth ammendment which, says that all rights not specifically given to the Federal Government shall be retained by the States. Now "shall" is a word which has a mandatory meaning, thus if a State Shall retain a right not given the Federal Government. The Federal Government , Can Not, take that right from the State."

Good point, except that Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution provides a whole list of restrictions that would seem to preempt secession:

"Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

"No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

"No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay."

So, the 10th Amendment argument has a serious weakness, for it tries to place an "implied" right of secession OVER the direct restrictions within the Constitution.

"Secession was legal by the Consitution."

That is one interpretation...but it was never established as fact.