[ravinson]

That would only be true in the Unionist view, in which the Southern states never actually left the Union -- because they couldn't -- but only "rebelled". Hence the partisan locution popular at the time, "War of the Rebellion". But precisely because the secessionist states were no longer in the Union, they could no longer violate that Constitution to which they were no longer signatories.

Art. I, Sect. 10 says nothing about relieving seceding states from their duty not to form confederations and engage in war. Dissolving a union does not relieve you of your duties to your ex-partners. For example, partnership agreements generally prohibit partners who leave the firm from competing with the partnership.

Thus, the rebellious states would have had a much better constitutional argument had they declined to confederate and start a war. (Of course, the abject immorality of seceding to preserve slavery would still subject them to condemnation by any fair minded people.)

[lentulusgracchus]

Art. I, Sect. 10 says nothing about relieving seceding states from their duty not to form confederations and engage in war.

Of course it doesn't -- secession isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. I thought we'd been over that.

And <Reagan voice> "There you go again" -- trying us on with "You didn't have permission !" Of course not. Revolutionaries never have permission -- except from the Founders. But then, the People need only their own permission, under their sovereignty. And the Peoples of the Southern States were sovereign over their destiny -- a fact which you will play hell denying. That is the nut of the whole argument. They were sovereign, but your side decided to deal with them as if they weren't.

The Peoples of the Southern States had every right to do what they did, under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which specifically protect rights not enumerated elsewhere, said rights including the right to revolution and the right to secede. Period. And you are in no position to gainsay their rights.

When the Union is dissolved, it's over.

Dissolving a union does not relieve you of your duties to your ex-partners.

When you are the Sovereign, it absolutely does. How could you get that wrong?

You keep trying to equate the sovereign People of Virginia with a corner tobacconist. No sale, amigo.

For example, partnership agreements generally prohibit partners who leave the firm from competing with the partnership.

This one didn't.

(Of course, the abject immorality of seceding to preserve slavery would still subject them to condemnation by any fair minded people.)

There you go again -- the South's innate corruption of spirit justifies anything.....a-ny-thing......that your nasty little bullyragging heart may desire. (Since you've commenced dealing in moral judgements.) I think the gender nazis call that one "blaming the victim" -- a favorite pastime of jailhouse lawyers and other criminals.

Go ahead, Ravinson. Tell us how much the 620,000 decedents deserved it.