[rockrr]

"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."

Nope, no mention of secession. They are referring to the natural law of rebellion.

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.

No I didn't. Because it isn't a "right" granted by omission via the 10th.

I have already noted that the southern states seceded quite openly and by Democratic means.

Unilaterally and illegally.

Sherman's march to the sea was worse.

But didn't rise to the level of the Brits treatment of the colonists.

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

Unilaterally and illegally.

What the heck are you talking about? There is no such thing as an "illegal" secession, because there's no such thing as a "legal" one, either. Secession is the act of leaving an organization. Whether or not you follow the "rules" of the organization you just left is only relevant if you lose.

As for West Virginia... it seceded even more "illegally" than the Confederate states did (based on your standard). The Confederate states at least used the existing state governments to declare their separation. West Virginia was created because a second, unionist-backed Virginia government was formed in Wheeling that then voted to secede (over the objections of the established Virginia government in Richmond) and was recognized by the US Government. If there had not been a war, West Virginia would have been enjoined from statehood based on Article 4 Section 3 of the Constitution itself:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Far from supporting the idea of a "legal" secession, the case of West Virginia shows that there is no such thing. The only legal secession is the one that succeeds, and the only "illegal" one is the one that fails.

[nathanbedford]

Nope, no mention of secession. They are referring to the natural law of rebellion.

Are you sure you want to concede a natural right of "rebellion?"

No mention of secession in the Declaration of Independence? I suppose you are correct, the declaration only provides for the right of the people to "alter" or "abolish" government and to "institute" new government. You're right, no right to secession as mentioned.

I noticed you have abandoned your core argument that there is no "enumerated" right to secession (presumably in the Constitution alone).

Unilaterally and illegally.

To argue that the opposite of what someone maintains without justification or explanation is puerile.

But didn't rise to the level of the Brits treatment of the colonists.

Whole sections of the land were burned-out and the population starved out as a deliberate policy anticipating the wars of the 20th century, I think an argument can be made that the Yankees treated the South worse than the Brits treated the colonials. But, remember your initial premise that there is no equivalence, no relevance to the American war of Independence. We are now discussing degrees of violence etc. It sounds to me like we are talking about very similar affairs with arguable degrees of violence on one side or another but no clear ability to say that one was different from another because of the degree of violence. It is impossible given these facts to say that there is no relevance between the two wars.