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.
There is no mention of secession in the Declaration of Independence "it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
You did not address the fact that there is no enumerated prohibition against secession and therefore it is a 10th amendment right held by the states.
The colonists openly rebelled without pretense or deceit.
I have already noted that the southern states seceded quite openly and by Democratic means.
"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.
"If a pigeon attempted to fly the length of the Shenandoah Valley he would have to pack his own rations"… General Phil Sheridan in his report describing the devastation he wrought in the Shenandoah Valley. Sherman's march to the sea was worse.
The main difference is that they [West Virginia] did not attempt unilateral secession like the confeds.
Of course they did, they conducted the secession from Virginia without reference to the will of the people of the whole state, protected by force of arms of Union troops. When the southern states seceded they submitted the issue to all the people of all of the southern states respectively.
The secession of West Virginia stands in hypocritical contradistinction to the war of Northern aggression conducted against the South for doing the very same thing.
