Would you consider an act illegal if it was specifically prohibited in the US Constitution? Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution specifically addresses Treason. It says “”Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” I think that the South’s action would safely fall under the “levying war” part of this article. Now if you want to quibble and say the war was not illegal, only the actions of those people waging (or “levying” to use the words of the Constitution)it, go ahead, but it’s the same thing.
“I think that the South’s action would safely fall under the “levying war” part of this article.”
Treason is a crime, you can only prosecute individuals for crimes. You can’t prosecute “the South” for treason.
“Now if you want to quibble and say the war was not illegal, only the actions of those people waging (or “levying” to use the words of the Constitution)it, go ahead, but it’s the same thing.”
It’s not the same thing, wars simply can’t be “illegal”. It’s a misapplication of terms.
Treason is a serious charge - and you made it regarding the South. For the record, which Southerners were convicted of treason? Or were you just using it in a gratuitous, non-serious way?