"Even South Carolina argued that secession was extra-constitutional. In the declaration, South Carolina does bring up the Tenth Amendment, but not as a justification for secession; instead the Tenth Amendment is offered to buttress the argument that South Carolina was and continued to be an independent sovereign state when it ratified the Constitution and afterwards. South Carolina's rationale for secession was a new 'fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact'. This principle is in neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution. South Carolina on its own, 1, characterized the Constitution as a compact, 2, claimed that it was 'deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States' and 3, declared that 'the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation'. South Carolina was not claiming to follow the Constitution when it declared secession. On the contrary, South Carolina was claiming that the Constitution was broken and therefore no longer applicable to South Carolina. South Carolina was claiming to follow something else entirely, the law of compact. South Carolina was not appealing to the Supreme Court to interpret secession as part of the Constitution. South Carolina was 'appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world'. And I think we all know how that turned out."