[nathanbedford]

Golly, I thought you had when you said, "By contrast [to the colonials experience with the British] the southern slavers agitated a violent separation from the union …" You meant that this behavior distinguished and made illegitimate there efforts to secede.

But later, when it was pointed out that Lincoln was certainly equally harsh in his treatment of the former states which had succeeded and had formed their own country, you dismissed his behavior saying,

So what? War is hell. They shouldn't have started something and set the pace for something they couldn't finish.

Which is it?

You make much of saying that there is no "enumerated "right" of succession" but of course that neglects the very existence of the Declaration of Independence which Lincoln explicitly sought to incorporate into and make a fundamental document of the American Republic by his speech at Gettysburg. So while the Constitution does not enumerate a right of secession the Declaration of Independence certainly articulates such a right.

Equally, the Constitution does not enumerate a prohibition against secession but it does explicitly reserve rights not otherwise enumerated to the states. Why is the right of secession not one of those rights?

The experience of West Virginia can hardly be said to be apposite because there was a succession from Virginia, that is a state of one nation, the Confederacy, to become a state of a different nation, the United States. Evidently, there is a right to secede in one direction only.

Incidentally, the south did secede in an orderly fashion by plebiscite in many cases. Once done, by their lights, federal troops invaded a sovereign nation which any nation has the right to resist and supplies a fully "defensible reason other than their own belligerence" for resort to arms.

I think a justification of Lincoln's war against the Confederacy must be made on a moral level, inherent in the moral wrong of slavery, just as Lincoln was forced to do against his inclination when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation. As Lincoln said to Harriet Stowe, author of, Uncle Tom's Cabin, "so you are the little lady who started the Civil War."

The idea that the sovereign states who formed a union of "United States" whose Constitution contains no "enumerated" prohibition against secession are somehow constitutionally prohibited from doing so, depends not on logic but on Appomattox Courthouse. The constitutional principle was established there and not in the Supreme Court (except post bellum) and not in the halls of Congress.

[rockrr]

You've applied a curious twist - to both your own statements and to my reply.

As to forfeiture: I interpreted your statement as the south forfeiting by conceding their attempt at secession - they obviously did not (atleast until the bitter end). It looks like you meant that they lost at their attempt at secession (they didn't succeed at seceding LOL). I apologize for any confusion.

Then, your original statement was, "As Judge Napolitano points out, Lincoln was not altogether polite in his suppression of the rebellion." to which I responded "war is hell".

Now you phrase it as "Lincoln was certainly equally harsh..." - I categorically reject that premise. Lincoln's response to the south was reactionary and slow to get up to speed but he did not treat the rebels as harshly as the Brits treated the colonists.

So while the Constitution does not enumerate a right of secession the Declaration of Independence certainly articulates such a right.

There is no mention of secession in the Declaration of Independence. The colonists openly rebelled without pretense or deceit.

You can think the analogy of West Virginia inapt or clumsy but it stands as an example of a correct way to secede - as opposed to the way the slavers did it. The main difference is that they did not attempt unilateral secession like the confeds.

I think a justification of Lincoln's war against the Confederacy must be made on a moral level, inherent in the moral wrong of slavery, just as Lincoln was forced to do against his inclination when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

You can think that but you would be wrong. Although the moral wrongness of slavery was a legitimate issue of contention, it was the south's issue - not the norths. Lincoln went to war in response to the south going to war against him and the north. .

The constitutionality of unilateral secession has been addressed - and rejected by SCOTUS. That doesn't mean it couldn't come up again but it would be an uphill battle.