[Non-Sequitur]

When I pointed out to you that Lincoln (and pretty much everyone else in the North) considered the Confederacy “in rebellion,” you then must necessarily have agreed that rebellion and secession were, indeed, synonymous.

Say what? The Southern acts in 1861 were rebellion. Secession is legal, if done within the bounds of the Constitution. Rebellion is not.

[ought-six]

“Secession is legal, if done within the bounds of the Constitution.”

Well, I’ve read the Constitution, and studied it and its progeny in my Constitutional Law classes way back in the day. Nowhere in the Constitution is secession even addressed. However, SCOTUS did tread on the issue in 1868 (Texas v. White), when it held that secession was unconstitutional. That ruling would be ex post facto, and the constitution does not allow any retroactive application. Thus, arguendo, pursuant to Texas v. White in 1868, secession going forward would be unconstitutional. However, prior to Texas v. White, secession was not unconstitional (there was nothing on point even addressing the issue).

It’s an interesting subject.