But if the way that they seceeded was not legal then they were still a state, regardless of whether they considered themselves one or not. Their actions then constituted rebellion.
There are quite a few states that did so among the original 13 as well as Texas later on.
There were, I believe, only three. But regardless of what they said in their ratification documents they also ratified the Constitution itself. And that included the part which said that the Constitution and laws made under it was the supreme law of the land, regardless of what any state law, state constitution, and, yes, ratification document may say. So unless the method in which they left the Union was allowed under the Constitution then their actions were illegal. And arbitrary secession is not allowed.
Lincoln was in office, he just wasn't in the Presidential office.
Please give me a break. He was president-elect without the power or authority to do anything. What other office did he hold?
In fact, the Lower South used their unconstitutional attack on Fort Sumter to attract the Upper South states to their cause.
Let's clear up a few misconceptions in your reply to this. Last time I looked at a map, Sumter was in Charleston and Charleston was in South Carolina, not Georgia. There is no Fort Marcy in Charleston, or anywhere else that I'm aware of. There was a Castle Pinkney and a Fort Moultrie where the soldiers were stationed before they moved to Sumter. Their actions did not constitute blockade since they made no threats and did not take any hostile action. Shipping flowed into and out of Charleston harbor the whole time the troops were there, with the exception of the federal supply ship that the south fired on in January 1861. Finally, you claim that the troops were there to collect ruinous taxes on exports is ludicrous since the Constitution forbids tariffs on exports, only allowing it on imports. Other than that I think you were pretty accurate.
Where in the Constitution is the power to initiate war granted to the President? Where in the Constitution is the power to deport dissenting Congressmen granted to the President? Where in the Constitution is the suppression of the Bill of Rights granted to the President? Where in the Constitution is the arrest and imprisonment of an entire state's Congress given to the President? Where in the Constitution is the call up of militias given to the President?
So many claims. Where to begin? First of all, Lincoln did not initiate a war. You conduct war with other nations, not rebellious sections of your own country. In any case, the south fired first, not the North, and it was the south which issued a declaration of war, not the North. Lincoln never deported a dissenting congressman, trampled over the Bill of Rights, or arrested an entire state legislature and I would be obliged if you would provide proof that he did any of this. The right to call up the militia for a limited time to supress rebellion or invasion was given the President by Congress by the Militia Act of 1792. To continue, Lincoln didn't arbitrarily restrict gun ownership and, again, I would ask for your evidence that he did. Finally Lincoln did not end slavery, he freed the slaves held in the south as a necessary measure to combat rebellion and in his capacity as Commander in Chief. Don't you read any of the documents you debate? I should also point out that just about action you mentioned, other than freeing the slaves of course, was also done by Jefferson Davis, from suspending habeas corpus to locking up political prisoners to seizing private property for the war effort. Would you direct some of your ire at him, too?
I'm glad that you agree that the Constituion is quite clear. Since we agree on that, if you can show me a single action affecting the status of a state which does not require congressional approval, or where the Constitution allows a state to act in an arbitrary manner where the interests of another state are involved then you might bring me around to your belief that arbitrary secession was legal. Until then, the actions of the southern states were acts of rebellion, they started the conflict, and they reaped the consequences of their actions.
There is no provision in the Constitution relieving seceding states from their obligations under Art. I, Sect. 10 not to confederate or engage in war.
There are quite a few states that did so among the original 13 as well as Texas later on.
Please cite what you contend constitutes any kind of a reservation of a state right to secede.
A blockade, is an Act of War. Where in the Constitution is the power to initiate war granted to the President?
So you considered JFK's bloskade of Cuba during the missile crisis to be an unconstitutional act of war? Also, please read Art. II, Section 2, which makes the President the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the U.S., and Art. II, Section 1, which vests the President with the power to execute the laws (including but not limited the laws prohibiting states from confederating and waging war).
Where in the Constitution is the power to deport dissenting Congressmen granted to the President? Where in the Constitution is the suppression of the Bill of Rights granted to the President? Where in the Constitution is the arrest and imprisonment of an entire state's Congress given to the President? Where in the Constitution is the call up of militias given to the President? Where in the Constitution is the power to arbitrarily restrict Free Speech, gun ownership, and indeed since we're talking about the War of Northern Agression and at the time there *were* only 12 Amendments, Where, at that time, was the power to abolish slavery given solely to the President
If you're contending that Lincoln did any of those things, please be specific if you want me to respond. He certainly did not abolish slavery by executive order -- that was done by the 13th Amendment. Lincoln did take some unprecedented action to put down the Confederate insurection, but of course what the Confederates did in the name of preserving slavery was unprecedented as well and certainly much more aggregious and blatantly unconstitutional than anything Lincoln did.
You have 2 choices, 1) The Constitution is invalid as it establishes a majoritarian tyranny. 2) The Constitution is invalid as it does not establish a majoritarian tyranny, but has been violated in such a manner.
The Constitution is far from perfect, but to quote Thomas Jefferson:
"The framers of our constitution certainly supposed they had guarded, as well their government against destruction by treason, their citizens against oppression under pretence of it; and if these ends are not attained, it is of importance to inquire by what means, more effectual, they may be secured."
The Confederates certainly didn't come up with a better constitution. Lincoln, on the other hand, was instrumental in making a huge improvement in the Constitution by the passage of the 13th Amendment.
The Constitution isn't vague or ambiguous. It's wording is quite clear...
When you decide to escape the deep confines of fantasyland, let me know and I'll try to help you find your way back to reality.