Whether or not the states successfully left the Union by their Acts of secession is not at issue. What is at issue is that the act of secession did certainly entail forfeiture of representation in the U.S. Congress.
Once that had been forfeited, everything those states had to do to get it back was a consequence of that action, not an outside imposition.
What does Blackstone’s opinion of abortion in 1765 matter? I thought nerarly all conservatives agree that Blackmun’s definition of personhood was erroneous.
No, that IS the issue. If the Southern states legitimately left, the Union had no authority to force them back into a 'free association' with the other states.
If the Southern states leaving was not legitimate, then they never left the association, ergo there was no 'return' and no conditions for their reinstatement could be placed on them.
-----
Once that had been forfeited, everything those states had to do to get it back was a consequence of that action, not an outside imposition.
Something agreed to under duress is not legally binding.
-----
What does Blackstone’s opinion of abortion in 1765 matter?
It is within the subject of the thread.
-----
I thought nerarly all conservatives agree that Blackmun’s definition of personhood was erroneous.
If conservatives agree that Blackstones’s definition of person-hood was erroneous, it's the first I've heard of it.